To this kind of argument, I always have the same response: not everyone’s concept of God is identical. How else would you explain the existence of Islamist sermons of hatred? Or the harassment of women, gays, Jews and others? What would you say to the victims of the Pakistani Muslim grooming gangs or the Muslim girls who are forced into marriage? If we all pray to the “same” God, then what about the knife attacks, the beheadings and the use of trucks as weapons of murder by perpetrators screaming Allahu-Akbar? What about ISIS and Al-Qaeda? Radical views exist and we urgently need to grapple with them.
Hold it right there, the misunderstanders reply. Didn’t we already make it clear? There are misfits in every society, including ours. Sexual violence against women is universal. And look at the latest report from the UK Home Office. It concludes clearly — after an allegedly long and rigorous research process — that the whole gory business of grooming gangs had nothing to do with Pakistanis and absolutely nothing to do with Islam.
So who is playing this Misunderstanding Game? A class of undergraduates doing a workshop on Public Policy? No. It is in fact our elected political leaders, as well as senior editors from highly regarded news outlets, professors from reputable universities and think tanks, senior civil servants and, at times, EU leaders. These conversations on the thorniest issues facing Europe are taking place in parliamentary committees, debating chambers, international seminars and on national television.
Scrutinise the transcripts of these talks, replay the recordings, read the numerous reports, books and articles generated over the last three decades on immigration, Islam and integration, and the picture that emerges is the same: it is an endless version of the Misunderstanding Game.
Meanwhile, the numbers of immigrants in Europe from Muslim-majority countries has swelled to… who knows? In 2017, the Pew Research Center projected that the Muslim share of Europe’s population could rise from 4.9% to between 7.4% (if there is no more immigration) and 14% (if there is a lot) by 2050. Even if there is less blitheness today about the wonderful ways immigrants from Muslim countries will enrich Europe — especially in France — an end to immigration is not in sight. Europe’s borders continue to be porous, the reasons that compel people to leave their countries get increasingly compelling.
It is, perhaps, a disappointment to those who have always insisted that we humans are all the same to see so many Muslim groups form organisations and movements with the objective of isolating their communities from the rest of society. In some countries, like France, they have succeeded enough to alarm the president to introduce new legislation that signals he has had enough of the Misunderstanding Game. And yet President Macron can hardly be said to be leading a Europe-wide change of sentiment. In most countries, the Misunderstanding Game goes on. Why?
One theory is that there is a genuine desire within the European political elite to atone for the past; today’s leaders don’t want to repeat the mistakes of their ancestors. Another possibility is that Western leaders have simply lost confidence in Western Civilisation. It has all been one long tale of horrors: slavery, oppression, colonialism, genocides, misogyny and massacres. Hence there are no values to protect from large numbers of outsiders and certainly nothing worthwhile to ask immigrants to integrate into. A third explanation is that some European leaders genuinely wish to do away with borders. For them it is a matter of principle and they couldn’t care less who pays the price for the pursuit of a borderless planet.
But I believe there is one more reason: incompetence. Quite simply, none of the leaders whose job it is to resolve the issues of Muslim immigration and integration has a clue as to how to go about it. These politicians around the table who do have the right sort of principles but lack the ability to persuade the others. Some grasp the fine details of the issue but are incapable of seeing the big picture. And as with all policy areas of this magnitude and complexity, there are also those leaders who parrot the interests of organised groups who benefit from the status quo. It is they, I assume, who enjoy the Misunderstanding Game the most.
The incompetence of each set of leaders is often masked by an eye-catching political photo-op expressing a grand gesture or a soundbite along the lines of “history will be our judge”. But, as they know all too well, history does not vote; it does not promote or appoint a politician to a senior level. So let it judge away.
In the meantime, the flow of migrants has abated somewhat in the past few years, but large numbers of people still attempt to reach Europe, even during the pandemic. Last year Europe saw more than 336,000 first-time asylum applications and, from January to November, 114,300 illegal entries.
Looking forward, it seems inevitable that as European countries emerge out of Covid lockdowns and their economies reopen, some countries in Africa will face food shortages and other economic problems arising from pandemic-induced disruption. You don’t have to be a sage to foresee masses of young men heading towards Europe. As they attempt to cross the Eastern and Southern points of entry into the EU, be ready for European politicians to speak of a sudden surge and an unforeseeable crisis.
Then watch them play the Misunderstanding Game once again.
Join the discussion
Join like minded readers that support our journalism by becoming a paid subscriber
To join the discussion in the comments, become a paid subscriber.
Join like minded readers that support our journalism, read unlimited articles and enjoy other subscriber-only benefits.
SubscribeWhat a terrific article. I don’t think I’ve ever read these arguments put so calmly and clearly.
Agreed. Douglas Murray’s book on the same subject makes all these points at great length, but this hits the bull’s eye in a moment, especially in its account of the “misunderstanding game”. Surely this represents more than a rhetorical dodge to cover incompetence? It looks like a deliberate rejection of reason. The same irrationalism can be spotted in many other policy areas – health, for instance. The left, which as Melanie Phillips observes, is in permanent control of western institutions, has responded to Orwell’s devastating diagnosis by simply doubling down. And with the internet settled firmly over our eyes, deception and deflection will be easier than ever.
Yes, you outline very concisely why the West is done. The left are no longer the ‘useful idiots’ but the ‘useless intelligent’ i.e. they are useless in terms of anything they might offer to society, but capable of applying a very twisted form of considerable intelligence to destroying society. They are the new masters and they will destroy us all.
Quite so. It remains a mystery, however, that so many should retain their attachment to this dark project. Perhaps, like the endlessly hopeful gambler or the convinced religious fanatic, they believe the Utopian jackpot or “rapture” is imminent.
Scientific propaganda about computers and genomes have helped to delude them, of course; not to mention Fukuyama’s asinine “end of history”. And the more that the secret voices of reason and doubt and sheer fatigue whisper their objections, the more obstinately they cling to the futile hope.
Naturally, having wasted billions, trashed lives and ruined our continent, they now flinch from waking up to the devastation, fearing not only the loss of purpose but the crushing weight of guilt.
The shamelessness with which some of them propound pan-African nationalism, for example, whilst stamping out every last shred of European pride, is an obviously morbid symptom.
If we let them.
Can I just add that there is a difference between what is happening today and similar ideas in the past. That is that the education system has already been taken over so that children as young as 8 years old are being brainwashed. There is literally no way back.
Think, for example, what would happen if somebody in a responsible position were to say, “We need to worry about Muslims.” They would lose their position in about 60 seconds.
Yes, I have read Douglas Murray’s book; a very important work. I hope many more people do.
I think it is deliberate. The deliberate part is to confuse “race” and “religion”. Why? Because to Europe’s secular left, the enemy is Europe’s Christian inheritance. The natural ally is, of course, Islam.
Some truth in this – certainly as regards the high priests of the current hard left cult. But on a more humdrum level, I suspect that enlightenment has been perplexed by the cushy personal circumstances of many a metropolitan pinko. After all, to them “multiculture” is cheap labour, exotic restaurants, smooth talking high end migrants in banking or diplomacy and “crazy” migrants who chuckle as they sell them drugs. What the rich pinko forgets is that it his money, his prestige and the remaining prestige of his culture, together with his status within it, that keeps the dealer sweet.
Spot on…
unaware that they,the saviours,will become soon dispensable to the saved.
Unherd keeps going up in my estimation at the moment with their courage to publish such honest and straight-forward articles.
Somebody at last talking sense and showing that constantly backing away from a problem is not working. Well done
Well, yes, but all rational people have known all this for many years. If you want to talk about games, the fact is that Islam plays a long one. It has taken 1,400 years for Islam to violently or peacefully take over much of the world. It will quite happily wait a century or two longer to take over Europe.
As for the western politicians, they are a combination of the unspeakably wicked and the unspeakably dumb, with no understanding of history, economics, religion or anything else. As such they are completely incapable of learning from history that Islam will never assimilate. It is an insolent, insidious and deceitful belief systems that lives off others. Or, when necessary, it feigns a craven meekness. Ultimately, when confident of strong enough, it turns on the host and destroying it. Our welfare systems, democracy and tolerance etc only serve to expedite this process.
Given that the West is committing suicide, the game I often play is to work out under whose system I would prefer to live – the Chinese system or Islam, because those seem to be the only two options right now. Fortunately, I will probably be dead before this becomes reality and not just a game.
It was one of the best articles I’ve seen for a while on UnHerd. All of this is happening for three reasons:
1) Over the years Islam has always been aggressive in pushing itself forward, in invading countries and in fighting for its place. But you could say the same for Christianity ……
2) Over the last century religion in Europe has declined to almost non-existent. In the past, an ‘attack’ from an outside religion would have led to a vigorous ‘defence’ from the incumbent religion, a closing of ranks, and this would have been supported by Government edicts….
3) which no longer come because the Governments are trying to be ‘friendly’ to everybody. It is notable in the UK that, originally, the ‘Left’ wanted to be the most friendly but now the ‘Left’ has faded into the background. There has been a change which has gone by unnoticed:
The ‘Left’ has become the ‘Right’ and vice versa. Today, the ‘Left’ is the party of the middle-class academics and strongly pushes the BAME issues in schools and universities, whereas the ‘Right’ seems to be the party of the working class and is printing money to give away.
The politicians I have likened to commenters on UnHerd, who like to get upticks but are not so keen on downticks – those who say the things which they know will get agreement. Politicians can’t live with downticks. If you suppose that the government would do something today -regarding any subject, like Muslim invasion – the Opposition would scream, ‘Racists’ and the government would get thousands of downticks. So, nothing is done.
In a way, the ‘Left’ doesn’t have to do anything at all, just to watch the ‘Right’ blunder along. Strangely, it is better to be in opposition than to govern.
‘In the past, an ‘attack’ from an outside religion would have led to a vigorous ‘defence’’
Islam is not a religion. It is a system of law, governance and power, sometimes dressed as religion. Ultimately, it is nothing more or less than a very long-term and global power grab. This is what the politicians and do-gooders fail to understand in their besotted stupidity.
This comes back to the idea that there are two types of people:
The Plebs and The Thinkers.
Clearly, everyone on UnHerd is a Thinker and knows that Islam is ‘a system of law, governance and power.” But, presumably, the Plebs (huge majority) think that Islam is a religion. Don’t majorities always win in the end?
Ridiculous. Of course it is a religion, but a very dangerous one. There is nothing at all to prevent a religion being at the same time a system of law, governance and power with an ambition to dominate and oppress others. The two are not mutually exclusive. Religions can be both benign and disruptive; good and evil.
Precisely. The combination of extensive legal and political with religious claims leads to the most intransigent fanaticism – for it means that every last jot of prescribed behaviour must be enforced on pain of divine disapproval, preventing dissent, discussion, reform, progress, adaptation or full toleration. And this is why the middle east, once rich beyond the dreams of avarice, has stagnated whilst the western world surged forward. When debate was still free in the west, I seem to recall a statistic claiming that more books were published in one year in Spain alone than in the whole Arab world. Well, we are stagnating now, for “Wokeness” is just such religion, although it has not yet claimed celestial sanction.
That seems to be a baseless presumption. Might have been true 20 – 30 years ago, but by now “the Plebs” are pretty much clued on.
That idea is also a baseless one, although it may make a catchy soundbite.
Islam began as a political ideology and went on to invent and borrow from existing religions to support the ideology. Christianity began as a religious faith and went on to ally itself to various political ideologies to support the religion (often to its detriment, unfortunately). That’s an over-simplification but broadly true. At heart, Islam is a political and social movement with an outwardly religious practice. At heart, Christianity is a movement for spiritual transformation with an outwardly social practice.
Understanding this should help to discern the real dangers of Islam, and it’s difference from other religions, particularly Christianity.
As for Islam today, this is correct. The original political ideology borrowed from existing writings of Mohammad.
A theocracy, in short. Theocracy as a societal order is so far removed from the civilised “Western” mindset that it’s very reticent to even contemplate (let alone acknowledge) its existence.
I totally agree. Why else was Donald Trump so fiercely opposed?
I agree with what you say; regarding western politicians one could add unspeakably venal and unspeakably scared. On the former point we have the Tories’ love of the Saudis, or Labour’s love of their Labour-voting urban constituencies (not realising that the inevitable outcome will be their replacement by Islamic political parties soon).
Few, if any, have the courage that Ayaan Hirsi Ali has shown; while having her example of the threat faced by critics of Islam.
I imagine that Tory love of (Saudi) money might explain their reticence to criticise Islam. There’s a lot of petro dollars in London – or rather, Petro-Islam.
Your horrible attempts at poisoning the well have been noted.
If we had been amicably chatting away in March 1931 I would have agreed with you.
The Jewish population of Germany was 1%. The Muslim population of the UK has already exceeded that. I don’t think any of us want to endorse genocide though.
Sound like Charles is almost fully sold on the genocide option.
Surely once we are subservient to the CCP they will continue their genocide habit.
Did you not do comprehension at Eton?
He is right you know. History always has an answer and brutality is the historical norm.
Fraser, to the ‘unspeakably wicked and unspeakably dumb’ I would add, ‘the unspeakably hypocritical’. Actually I think they are the commonest type. I often see a lot of recognition in friend’s eyes when I raise the topic of Islam,
but they rarely commit themselves, and the worst usually deny it. It must be not unlike trying to identify potential recruits for the resistance was in occupied France. I agree, this is perhaps the best pieces I have ever seen on the topic, bleak as it is.
Congrats to Ali for talking about this “difficult” subject, which politicians have dodged for so long.
“You don’t have to be a sage to foresee masses of young men heading towards Europe.”
Funny how it’s always men, isn’t it?
‘Congrats to Ali for talking about this “difficult” subject, which politicians have dodged for so long.’
She’s been talking about it for 20 years, and was hounded out of the Netherlands for doing so.
…and is also on an Al-Qaeda hit list.
The women wouldn’t be allowed to come.
The women will be demanded to come, on the grounds of “family reunification”. And the whole village / tribe too.
She’s the left’s worst nightmare. Love it.
Oh yes, Nesrine Malik at the Guardian seems to have her down as a right wing reactionary.
Nesrine Malik would have Pol Pot down as a right wing reactionary.
I’ve propounded the theory that to help distressed populations, rich countries should let women and children immigrate first, and let their men rejoin them later (if the women still want them, that is). It would not cost society any more than paying subsidies for the great number of men who get caught in the impossibility of finding a job. And it would provide a real chance for change within those same populations if children were allowed to absorb the positive within the new country’s systems without having to contend with antiquated traditions set in stone by their elders who often suffer from migrant’s syndrome.
How refreshing to find some original thinking on this article, focussed on what might help women.
An excellent piece, though not surprised given the author.
What she didn’t note in this article is a couple of interesting points – of which she is the most beautiful/saddest example. People like her from minority groups appear to be the West’s best chance of a return to a rational society of freedom for all etc. ‘Progressives’ hate minorities (and women) like her who don’t follow their script, far more than they hate (real) white racists.
Not sure about this. The ‘Progressives’ say clearly that there should be no thought or useful insight coming from an individual – such an insight has been ‘corrupted by science and logic’ over hundreds of years.
So, the author has to form a group, the group has to be accepted as truly disadvantaged and then the ‘minority group’ has something to say. Even Black is not a good group today because the disadvantage is too small. Black/feminist is better, black/feminist/trans is better again. The bigger the ‘disadvantage’, the more important the group.
Other features to add are: disabled, fat.
^ That’s a very good observation.
Explains the wokes’ unwillingness to discourse: they reject the validity of logic, rationality, science etc., because they regard them as “white”, therefore “corrupting” and “oppressive”. That’s why wokes don’t debate. They only chant.
If they say it so clearly, you’ll have lots of examples of them saying it (unless of course you made it up).
A recent book called Cynical Analysis will explain it. Today the wokes are saying that individuals (scientists, philosophers, etc) have developed theories and these theories have been seen to be successful because the proponents are white and (usually) male. As white males they have confidence and mental strength because they have developed ahead of the people they have oppressed (women and slaves).
So, the oppressed people haven’t the mental strength to argue against these top people on an individual basis and have to form groups where they can support each other. These groups tell the truth; science and white men lie in order to oppress the disadvantaged groups. So, you never accept an argument from an individual.
Anything else you want to know because you are too lazy to read?
Thanks for your kindly worded suggestion for further reading. Did you mean Cynical Theories, by Pluckrose and Lindsay?
An interesting (if gravely flawed) book, which may help to explain the degree of certainty that some right wing thinkers and advocates have regarding what they characterise as “wokes” or “the left”. The book seems to have a good introduction to postmodernism, which is admittedly a difficult topic. However, those who are more familiar than I with the writers Pluckrose and Lindsay cite, seem to judge that the book’s authors either have not fully understand what they are saying, or have not represented it entirely accurately. They seem to have produced a work that is more polemical than scholarly, and which generates more heat than light. Life is short, and if I want to understand what the theorists they attack are actually saying, there may be better books than this.
We can agree on the absurdity of the claim that “there should be no thought or useful insight coming from an individual – such an insight has been ‘corrupted by science and logic’”. I’m just not sure that claim is being made, as such, by any serious thinkers. Which is not to say there aren’t half-witted cranks and cynical revolutionaries on the left – there are. I just don’t believe that you can write off (in those terms) everyone who realises that there is in fact institutional racism, sexism, and other forms of discrimination in our society.
I know the world, and people. Want to see who will add to the Nation by migrating in? Google IQ by nation and look at which have done best in migrants, see how they rate on the scale by origin, it is right there.
Biden opened the gates to USA for unskilled from a reigon, and has just talked of how people from the India subcontinent are taking over NASA (he keeps Indians out of USA as migrants, but lets in the ones who will never add except as low skilled consumers.)(check the respective nations to the scale googled above
IQ again. Who’s a clever boy?
The reality of migration is that we could let in about 10% of the people for 80% of the benefit and 2% of the ‘cost’.
I should correct myself, it’s not a return to rationality and freedom – but to resume the move towards it. A little known American said somerhing about dreaming and judged by your character. Freedom in the UK certainly, such as speech and ability to criticise religion turned out to be very, very short lived.
The free and colour blind world I’d presumed in my youth we were moving towards – and it would have been the best society yet.
I deliberately didn’t look to see who the author was before I read the article for the simple reason that I try not to pre judge it. You can imagine my surprise, not by a white European male. I will be checking out more of Ali’s work as I must confess I know little about her.
There’s 100s of such people out there writing great stuff, great podcasts etc. Most are well aware that their group is being used by ideologues to promote authoritarian perversions of Liberal Left ideas.
Don’t forget ironically that the whole postmodernism idiocy is a dead stale pale male invention.
Postmodernism is dead but the new activism using postmodernism as a theoretical base is very much alive and has moved from white men to, predominantly. black women. Otherwise known as woke culture.
“In any case, we’re told, it is our own fault that these societies are falling apart because we colonised them in the first place. Worse, we even profited from the slave trade before and during the colonial years.”
Then go and apologise. Give money. Sign trade deals. Improve their defence industries. ANYTHING.
It should be very simple. If (if) we did bad stuff over there, then the atonement must be over there.
The Japanese tortured POWs. They now sell us cars, invest in our industries, apologise for WW2, maybe the occasional reparations to a Royal British Legion member. What they don’t do is open up their society to be colonised by someone else, because that doesn’t address the fates of those people living in the countries they abused. That idea of atonement is so utterly nonsensical that I have no idea what to say about it other than “what?!?”.
Of course, unrestricted immigration lets down job seekers over here, which is the usual contradictory policy of the left. They want to help benefit seekers but immigration takes away their jobs. They hate imperialism and eurocentrism, but they love the EU and China, they hate climate change but won’t embrace nuclear power. They talk about apologies but prefer tearing down statues and oppressing ordinary free thinking people over here instead. They hate inequality but won’t give people the opportunity to make money for themselves and narrow the inequality gap. They love “communities” but won’t allow people to be patriotic and come together as a community. Every policy they have cancels out another one.
Do the Japanese apologise for WW2?
I was thinking the same thing. Only a few years ago a Japanese court ruled than Korean women systematically raped by Japanese soldiers for years didn’t have their human rights breached.
They apologise to us Brits, less so the Koreans. I know a man that received the apology of a Japanese industrialist some years ago. Whether that apology was justified or not is up to you.
On reparations, and where they should happen, you make a fair point – but in the mean time we are slashing our foreign aid budget by up to 90% in some countries (and around 30% overall), so there seems to be a question over whether the UK has any intention of addressing harm done in the past – even in living memory.
For example, the UK Government has spent a fortune on legal fees trying to avoid its (our!) responsibility to the dispossessed Chagos Islanders, and to avoid repaying Iran for tanks we charged them for and then cancelled (the latter issue has led to a number of dual nationals being unjustly imprisoned in Iraq). We need to do better – even if the answer clearly isn’t “unrestricted migration”.
This fiercely brave lady, formerly a Dutch politician, originally from Somalia, was forced into exile in the US under constant protection after her friend and collaborator, film director Theo van Gogh was brutally murdered in broad daylight by an extremist
His crime was to make a short film of hers highlighting the mistreatment of women in Islam, and the murderer left a note on his body saying she would be next.
Yet again, worth hearing her brilliant interview on Triggernometry for more background.
Or read her book Infidel about her childhood and escape from Somalia.
“Infidel” was so absorbing, I couldn’t put it down until I reached the end in the early hours.
From Ms Ali’s piece, those playing this Misunderstanding Game are:
And from Orwell’s description in Nineteen Eighty Four, those forming the totalitarian Inner Party are:
Christ, it’s almost the same list. Soon it will be the same list doing the same thing for the same ends.
This essay was thought provoking in two respects. Firstly how do moderate muslims come to terms with what jihadist sections of the Islamic community inflict upon society?
and how do they react when they are tarred with the same brush?
The authors use of what he describes as ‘the misunderstanding game’ with his own children must be nightmarish on occasions.
As a former Catholic tired of their excuses and failure to act over paedophile priests there has to be a comparison. I consider myself to be a Christian person with Christian values but not a turn the other cheek happy clappy variety, when attacked.
All Muslims are battered almost daily with news of atrocities being committed by Islamist fundamentalists globally but unlike us Catholics nothing effective is being done about that problem.
It is relentless. Nearly all the civil wars in the middle east are Muslims killing Muslims.
Parts of Africa are infested with Jihadis such that it is virtually impossible for a day to go by without Jihadis murdering opponents including women and children and any religious minority they take a dislike to. Rape is endemic.
How the moderate Muslims cope with that must be impossible but telling your children that adverse comments about Islam is founded on ‘misunderstandings’ is at best obtuse and in my submission and from the evidence, more accurately that assertion is futile.
Christianity has had serious atrocity problems over the centuries and has played its part by former kings and queens using religion to obtain and maintain power. But it is fair to say that it is no longer medieval and except in very few third world backwaters around our troubled world, Christianity has moved into the 21st Century.
That cannot be said for Islam. Its followers remain medieval in their primitive direction of worship and because Koranic Jihadis adhere to the barbaric texts in the Koran, moderate Muslims (and their children) will continue to suffer unfair discrimination. I suggest that is inevitable. Calling legitimate complaints a phobia only inflames the problem.
Sadly the Koranic section is not a manageable minority and THAT is the real problem. It is fear of Islamists within the Muslim majority that allows this situation to continue.
Normally after such a negative observation it could be suggested that “it” will all end in tears. Sadly , and for many around the world, it already has.
Well, many (if not most) of the fabled “moderates” in the UK are of the Ahmadi branch, who are regarded as heretics by the mainline (sunni etc) muslims and are persecuted as such. Remember Mr Shah, the Ahmadi shopkeeper murdered in Glasgow? Or all the dirty ‘local election’ stuff going on in London boroughs, not exactly publicised.
The Ahmadi – the nice, decent, moderate muslims – are always the first to be wheeled out for the BBC camera crew after every jihadist atrocity, to show “us” how nice the muslims really are; they make good optics. Thus endangering their already persecuted heretic status even further.
100%
Good article which I agree with, however one of the other issues is how “institutional” the UK is when it comes to importing cheap labour. Our politicians of all persuasions have allowed it for years, instead of facing up to the fact that we need solve the problem by other means starting with improving:
1) skills of the people born here
2) productivity
3) more use of automation.
This is a very important post but very complicated to answer/comment. First of all, let me say that I agree with you.
Anecdotally:
Just down the road from me is a meat-processing factory and it is staffed by Poles and Romanians, almost exclusively. Wages are low and our people just ignore it – prefer to stay on benefits, in fact.
In California in the 1950s and 1960s, planeloads of Mexicans were flown in and out every year for fruit picking – some of them managed to become illegal immigrants. Today, there are complaints about the lack of opportunity in California but the immigrants still do the fruit picking.
In our wonderful, old, respected, solid societies we think that we are too good to do these menial jobs. We prefer to look at You Tube all day and our young people have ambitions like becoming You Tubers or Influencers. Automation does not sort out everything.
Absolutely. I was appalled at the suggestion that society would collapse, unless we kept on importing tens of thousands of curry chefs here, from Bangladesh and the rural hinterlands of Pakistan every year. I am also appalled that governments after government think it is allowable, for very large numbers of British born south Asian heritage youngsters of the Islamic type predominantly, to import their wives and husbands from the back of beyond. Each generation that does this only strengthens the base of ignorance, and the number of people who live here who have anti-modern and incompatible values.
Good to hear a sensible and differnet point of view from an authoritative source. But it would be great if she could do one thing more – the thing that progressives never do:
Say clearly what she thinks we should do, and what the likely consequences will be.
She has. Assimilation or deportation. If you listen to her on podcasts, you will hear her refer to both. In particular, listen to the Triggernometry podcast. More punchy than the Joe Rogan podcast (although the latter is well worth three hours of your time).
That is clearly the choice on offer, but no politician is brave enough to enforce it.
Actually in her book “Prey” Ayaan Hirsi Ali talks about removing and restricting benefits, as apparently Denmark is doing. Apparently here benefits can be given to all of a muslim man’s wives however many he has, even wives not living here, surely this is encouraging abuse of the system and anyway I thought that polygamy was illegal in this country!
Brilliantly put. Spot on.
Europeans are incentivized by their culture of multiculturalism to betray their nationhood (or what was formerly known as Christendom) by repeated media depictions of ‘religion is for the stupid and needy’.
“We are better than that…tolerant” (and squishy and high status!).
In modern European culture you are incentivised to be a Judas Goat(leading your children to the slaughterhouse) and espouse multiculti maxims which leave you rhetorically defenseless against a hostile Muslim invasion.
We in the US have our own issues with integration with sudden surges of illegal borders crossings. The same with some politicians seeking to assuage what they feel is a country filled with systemic white racists. Some migrants integrate others don’t. You can go to Chinatown in SF or NY and find immigrants who never leave and never have learned English…Others do usually the next generation. Joe Biden is telling our southern neighbors that the border is open, free health care and now vaccines for everyone along with all our safety net welfare programs why wouldn’t hundreds of thousands want to leave their economically and politically challenged countries. She is right this is only going to get worse in the coming years.
Joe Biden is practicing catch and release .. sending Covid positive illegal aliens into border states (and also sending them to other states across the country) Even the perpetually guilt stricken Left will object to this, I hope. Though they’ll continue to be fine w/flooding the nation w/illiterate, low skilled (albeit hard working) people who will continue to take jobs better skilled Americans need. And need especially now due to the locked down economy.
You want uninsured Americans suffering from chronic, treatable health conditions just to discourage economic migrants? Surely there is a better solution than making the US worse than wherever the migrants are from?
I have not heard or read of Biden “telling” migrants that the border is “open” and health care is “free” for undocumented migrants. As a matter of fact, he is maintaining border facilities to house undocumented migrants until their status had been ascertained. And deportation is the remedy if the migrant cannot meet the requirements for refugee status.
Javier Becerra, Biden’s HHS nominee, has met criticism from both Dems and Republicans for his belief that migrants should receive some welfare benefits. But I think both parties would generally agree while migrants are in custody they should receive healthcare necessary to prevent outbreaks of communicable diseases.
Accuracy as to relevant facts is key to resolving the very fraught issue of immigration. You may not like all of President Biden’s politics but give him a chance. He’s been in office less than two months.
In 2012, the then UN Migration chief, Peter Sutherland (and former chairman of Goldman Sachs and BP), made it clear that “The EU should “do its best to undermine” the “homogeneity” of it’s member states….” that “the future prosperity of many EU states depended on them becoming multicultural.” https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-18519395
Atonement, loss of confidence, open borders, incompetence… maybe, but I think the above makes a convincing case for a fifth and possibly more compelling reason: the demands of big business at any cost.
I wondered when someone was going to mention the despicable Peter Sutherland. May he rot.
He is already gone. He died in Jan 2018.
Good riddance. Nasty piece of work.
The cognitive dissonance of those who have lost faith in what the West is and represents and only focus on its historical sins to undermine it is clear. They need to ask themselves one question to begin down the road of regaining confidence in their identity: why is it that these migrants, in their time of distress (whether physical or economic), choose a Western democracy as opposed to, say Russia, China or any Muslim majority nation?
Even if the answer is, they go West to sponge off the generous social welfare systems (which, by the way, wouldn’t explain the US and its illegal aliens, sorry “undocumented persons”, problem). Those systems, representing a break for the better in reimagining a government’s relationship with and obligations toward its citizens, predate and did not foresee the arrival of these immigrants. Yet, they are predominantly Western creations of which we should be justifiably proud.
The answer must include issues such as the freedoms pioneered and enjoyed in the democracies. In other words, they are precisely attracted by what the West is and represents. Whether some or even many abuse these ideals for selfish reasons is a separate albeit important question – my focus is on the apparent loss of faith in the West that these immigrants manifestly do not share.
Another potential explanation is that many EU countries are caught in the rhetorical web of their own spinning. Creating universal abstractions is fine (especially when the target of the lecturing is Israel), but when the real world intervenes and suddenly those theories have a direct bearing on your actions, it’s a different matter as we see. The devil is always in the details. No leader wishes to be seen as a hypocrite.
One might just conclude that the current crisis of faith in Western institutions (which, by the way, is hardly a novelty but a recurrent theme every couple of generations) is misplaced. It arises from dissatisfaction with leaders who seem ineffectual.
There are no international conventions on economic migrants, so nations remain in charge of policing their own borders as they see fit. There are, however, such conventions for refugees and these require that the refugees seek asylum in the first “safe” country they reach. That requirement has been ignored for a variety of economic and political reasons.
Perhaps that convention needs to be reviewed and updated. It seems inevitable to me that as climate change progresses we will confront the phenomenon of environmental refugees – and what should happen to them? Whether or not you agree with the concept of climate change, the issue to be addressed is how to deal with mass migrations, and that applies to those fleeing wars and famine, whatever the cause. Forewarned is forearmed.
Thanks for a thoughtful contribution to the discussion. One point I’d make – I believe that the vast majority of those who are left of centre “do not only focus on [the West’s] historical sins to undermine it“. When they focus on historical sins of their (our) country, it is because they want the country to do better, and to be fairer – not because they want to destroy it. It is precisely because of their faith in the country and its freedoms and generosity of spirit that they argue for greater justice. Windrush campaigners, and even Grenfell activists, could be so motivated.
While there may be a vanishingly small number on the left who want to overturn democracy – just as there may be those on the far right who would prefer that democratic rights didn’t extend to minorities they dislike – that’s not the vast majority of the country, left or right. It is possible to admire many aspects of one’s country, to want to improve others, and to be politically left, right, or centre.
The religion of Moral Relativism so fervently practiced by the guilt wallowing Left could very well be the death of us all.
The difficult truth is that, while all people are created equal, not all cultural ideals and practices are of equal worth.
Speaking as a Conservative American who deeply values the Judeo-Christian values that brought about Western freedom – and particularly the incomparable freedom made possible by the US Constitution, Bill of Rights, etc. (freedom of speech, religion, press, assembly and the right to petition government) – it’s suicidal to allow immigration of those who value, and even celebrate, religious intolerance, illiteracy, the subjugation of entire classes of people and individual liberties – into our country.
The solution? Value and practice the values that brought about our protected (and increasingly governmentally eroded ) rights. Speak up to moral relativists. Return to your religious practice (or, at the very least, don’t permit denigration of those who practice their right to worship) Support venues like Unherd, Real Clear Politics, etc. (and throw away your TV set .. and w/it, fake news). Assemble anyway. And for God’s sake do petition your governmental representatives – and do so daily, if necessary: We the People are The deciding factor in sane immigration policies. Commenting here (or on any social media) is Not a substitute.
ALL ARE NOT CREATED EQUAL, this is reference to all created equal UNDER THE LAW. All are created very different, I have an IQ in the top 1%, 99 % of people do not, and one of the hundred I suppose has a IQ of 80. You say that is created equal?
“Nothing is more unequal than equality itself”.
Go argue w/God, He’s the one who first said it, then it was picked up and repeated in the US Declaration of Independence: “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.”
And by the way, Mr. Self-Declared Brilliant, “equal” does not mean “the same”.
But god does not exist!
Intelligence is but one aspect of being a human. We enjoy different talents, perhaps inherited, but were created as equal humans. How we nurture those talents makes us unique.
So do I but I’ve never, ever told anyone. What does that make you?
Feynman scored only 125 on the only IQ test he ever did, bright but nothing special.
He was not only very clever and groundbreaking, but also a funny and engaging human.
Theres people out there with tried and tested 190+ IQs, they’ve done nothing, achieved nothing. Being in the top 1% (even if genuine) puts you in the top 70 million worldwide, hardly special. The distribution is not even/normal, its heavily weighted with a lot of lower IQ people, compared to the top end – I presume it’s a function of evolution (most mutations are bad).
Testing IQ is like testing someone’s 400m speed and deciding if they’d make a good footballer.
Thank you.
Bully for you and your IQ. We are all created with equal VALUE (as you like to use capitals), regardless of differences in intellect, health, and various innate abilities/disabilities. That is the Christian basis for “Equal under the law”.
High IQ, by the way, doesn’t always predict high general intelligence, which would include emotional intelligence.
Not sure about emotional intelligence – seems a bit vague to me, but IQ is a rubbish test.
Also as you say we all have equal value.
Enoch Powell was by all accounts exceptionally intelligent – he won more prizes at Cambridge in the Classics than anyone before or since.
Should his views (he was for example hugely pro then anti EEC) be prioritised over us plebs?
An excellent response, Daisy – we need to get out and take action as you describe, not just exchange ideas on minority forums (though that can be a useful spur).
Thank you, and yes, it can be a useful spur.
The single most convincing person even attempting to tackle this. Ayan Hirsi Ali.
Douglas Murray here is also unequalled.
Contrary to what we are told, the cost to the economy is enormous.
This is an overview by Migration Watch of a paper from UCL some time back regarding the cost to the taxpayer of immigration. The BBC and co. were happy to trumpet that the conclusion of the paper was that the country benefitted hugely from immigration; however (and what a surprise) this is only for immigrants with professional qualifications. The rest are a huge burden on us all.
Go to Migration Watch, and then search for – paper 347 (quotes not needed). Link not provided as they often take an age for mods to OK them
Overall cost of migration
1. Between 1995 and 2011 the fiscal cost of migrants in the UK was at least £115 billion and possibly as much as £160 billion according to a report from the Centre for Research and Analysis of Migration headed by Professor Christian Dustmann at University College, London. The report found that migrants in the UK were a fiscal cost in every year examined.[1]
Contribution of ‘recent migrants’
2. The report claims that migrants who had arrived in the UK since 2000 had made positive contributions throughout the period from 2001 to 2011. This does not appear to be correct, the figures in the paper show that the contribution from these recent migrants was negative in each year after 2008.
Contribution of ‘recent A10 migrants’
3. The authors also highlighted a finding that between 2001 and 2011 recent migrants from Eastern Europe had made a net contribution of £5bn. While this correctly reports their most optimistic finding, their calculations in four alternative scenarios were all lower. One of these alone was enough to reduce the contribution to as little as £0.066bn – a sum within the margin of error of such calculations.
4. In addition, the very large fiscal cost of immigration overall is compounded by the cost of congestion and loss of amenity caused by our rapidly rising population.
Thanks for this. We are repeatedly told that migrants are a net positive financial gain. Yet we are also repeatedly told that ethnic minorities (who are more than likely to be migrants, or their descendants) face structural inequalities. There must be some contradiction here: if they’re facing inequality, it seems illogical that they won’t be costing us money in terms of welfare, housing and policing.
No contradiction here – they could be suffering structural inequalities, which could prevent them from making as large a contribution as they might otherwise do.
Figures from Migration Watch, an anti-immigration pressure group, have been criticised in the past for being misleading and inaccurate. They seem to believe that immigration, rather than underinvestment, is the reason for inadequate housing and healthcare.
On the cost of migration, even their figures do not show that professional migrants cost the country money. Are Migrant Watch conflating skilled migrants with asylum seekers, who (however well qualified) are prevented from working (or even more expensively, imprisoned), often for years, while they wait for their cases to be heard? We could make that system more just, and less costly, very easily – without reneging on our international obligations!
There is another reason. Abject cowardice. The same reason the Western world is in lockdown. No leader will make a call that has the possibility of mass opprobrium being hurled upon him or her even if those hurling it are an obnoxious but vociferous minority. The misunderstanding game is also a game of projecting great virtue.
Q
Clearly, there are immigrant groups that do not wish to and may even refuse to acculturate to the new country. If full acculturation is the aim of the new country’s immigration program (the EU in this case) and the immigrant group refuses to acculturate (isolating itself and remaining on public assistance), what can the country do if it has made good efforts to support the acculturation process? Should there be a limit on the length of acculturation process, beyond which the immigrants lose their status/acculturation benefits? There has to be some requirement for the immigrant to acculturate. And then what does it mean to be acculturated? That definition should be spelled out, eg, economic self sufficiency, language acquisition, educational attainments, etc. if those attainments are not met, the immigrant’s visa status can be changed.
Tolerance of differences is a essential in any society; however, to allow any immigrant group’s intolerance (ie refusal to acculturate) to undermine the society of the new country is wrong. There is no way to determine upfront which immigrant or groups of immigrants will refuse to acculturate. But the countries accepting immigrants can set agendas that must be met by the immigrants within a time frame that takes into account the educational and economic backgrounds of the immigrants.
I think English literacy tests should be part of any such process. I imagine plenty of British citizens can’t write or speak the language properly.
Agreed!
This of course should have been done from the start, but more than half a century later, to state what should be done is too late. Technological advances will ensure that many jobs will become obsolete in the near future, so a constant supply of cheap labour will not be required as it was in the past; we already don’t need train drivers or even fruit pickers, let alone doctors and lawyers. Governments in democracies don’t look beyond their electoral term and have done nothing to cope with a mass influx of people,let alone reduce the numbers; only pledges!
An extreme housing shortage and very inadequate infrastructure, plus the potential Balkanisation of society, seems to be our heritage for the future.
The pressures on immigration systems are just beginning.
For example, the ten-year-long drought and several years of calamitous hurricanes seasons has caused massive crop failures in Central America. The southern border of the US is facing a rising tide of starving Central Americans. Mexico has its own climate issues not to mention economic issues that forbid immigration. Hence, President Biden is now faced with a humanitarian crisis driven by climate change.
What is the right thing to do? And right for whom?
The Trump party says send them back. But to what, slow starvation? That is inhumane, and for the US, which touts its Christian values, such a decision/policy contradicts those values.
The EU may soon face its own refugee crisis as desertification expands in North Africa. Issues of Environmental Refugees are very different from issues of economic immigration. The sheer numbers of environmental refugees will swamp not only US and EU budgets but also their environments and cultures. And how will the West sift out those who have no intention of acculturation but rather aspire to be instigators against those who have taken them in
The coming mass immigration to the west caused by climate change has already begun. Ms Hirsi’s essay focuses on the issues of acculturation failures among some Muslim groups in the EU. That issue will be dwarfed by the unparalleled humanitarian crisis of mass migration into the EU and the US and Canada as uncontrolled climate change wreaks havoc on food supplies and social structures.
China is environmentally vulnerable and it cannot feed its people even now. It is hedging its bets by insinuating its companies and its yen into eastern Europe and the farmlands of Africa.
Perhaps the EU and the US should be talking to Russia, predicted to be a net winner in the warming climate, about helping with the coming masses of displaced people.
Now is the time to plan while we have the luxury of time.
Wonderful as always from Ayaan…
The Misunderstanding Game was greatly assisted by the execrable document produced by HMG – “Islamophobia Defined” The All Party Parliamentary Group, with long gone Anna Soubry holding the pen, and writing what the Muslim Council of Britain told it to say.
Jeeze.
The first step in integration has to be language. Without this we have no chance.
Any visa applicant or asylum seeker must be made to pass an English language test before either is granted (obviously for UK, French for France etc).
I have a good friend who was born in the UK with parents who immigrated from Pakistan in the 60’s. in 2000 he married his cousin who was in Pakistan and she came to the UK on a spousal visa. She is a nice lady, but still cannot hold a conversation in English. All her social interaction is basically restricted to the West London Pakistani community.
What chance does she have to integrate with broader British society?
Cousin marriage is just one of the many bad ideas which have been allowed to be perpetuated from recent immigrants. They are playing Russian roulette with genes and their children will have burden of lifelong ill health.
That would be bad for tourism (how many English tourists can speak the language of the countries they visit), and bad for business. And it wouldn’t help people coming to the country to learn or improve their English. Or are you talking about settlement visas? Because we already require people to pass an English language test AND a life in the UK test before they get settled status.
Interesting.
So, a boatload of people land on the Mediterranean coast, they cannot be ‘sent back’ beecause no country will take them, and we proceed to castrate all the men? After which, apart from the political consequences, Muslim countries would be perfectly justified to castrate all non-muslims within their borders?
Please join a left-wing party as soon as possible; people like you give racism a bad name.
The CCP perhaps?
It would seem a good fit. Perhaps an example of how authoritarian extremists of the left and the right seem to find common ground against the rest of humanity.
A third explanation is that some European leaders genuinely wish to do away with borders. For them it is a matter of principle and they couldn’t care less who pays the price for the pursuit of a borderless planet.
Of course they don’t care who pays the price, since they know full well they won’t!
I have an issue with multiculturalism as a term, specifically as raised in the Blair doctrine as a ‘good thing’
We have a culture based on norms (legal and cultural) to which all citizens must conform (noting this is a dynamic position). The idea of multiple cultures with equal value therefore undermine this concept. We have always had sub-cultures that have had separate identities, but mainly conformed to the main. As such we have maintained a stable democracy enabling huge economic and societal growth. Undermine this at your peril.
“How on earth do we design a vetting process that can distinguish those in search of economic opportunity from those who are true victims of civil strife?” These are not the only two categories in play: there are also those who simply come to exploit our welfare systems and those, allegedly few but supported quietly by many, who arrive with the sole intention to do harm.
I suppose the welfare exploiters consider the welfare an economic opportunity.
I like the idea of having immigration quotas based on what a country needs, not what the immigrant needs. So, if Italy, for instance, needs people w/plumbing skills, then bring in however many immigrants w/plumbing skills. And also have a fixed quota on the number of refugees allowed.
This sensible approach is decried as ‘racism’ by the Left, which is irrational and creates serious social dysfunction.
You are right but my problem is that it is not the ‘left’ doing this but everybody. In the UK, the right is solidly in power but is following all of the ideas of the left. As I say above, these ideas are fixed into our education system – who is controlling this? Why is it not changed in some way to teach ideas similar to yours’? Not just the left!!
Interesting points … I’m in the USA, and experienced hope for real immigration reform w/Trump. Hopes utterly dashed w/Biden. I’m horrified that he’s in the White House.
Not often I find much to agree with Emanuel Macron on, but the unassailable primacy of the essentially secular, democratic nation state, albeit one historically founded on Christian principles, and the rule of law needs to be unconditionally and vigorously reasserted over ALL religions without fear or favour.
“Another possibility is that Western leaders have simply lost confidence in Western Civilisation. It has all been one long tale of horrors: slavery, oppression, colonialism, genocides, misogyny and massacres.”
No wonder – it has been beaten out of them by a continuous onslaught from school, universities, colleges, media, arts. The West is bad and everyone else is a victim.
Until this balance is corrected and the focus shifts to widening the study of imperialism to include other countries and religions the majority will go on in ignorance and develop a ‘righteous’ resentment to the West and by default white people.
Given the large majority of children from muslim backgrounds in many inner city schools, surely it is time to widen the curriculum to look at islamic imperialism and expansionism throughout history and the role they played in the African slave trade – not to mention the present.
An interesting article that it’s hard to disagree with. A follow up on how to deal with the issue would be welcome.
Exactly and great point. Plenty of people will agree with you but the people on UnHerd form an insignificant minority. A debate about ‘how to deal with the issue’ would be far more useful.
The writer has nominated several reasons why the ‘game’ is being played across Europe. Every item has been well thought out and the article is well-written. But all of the reasons together don’t seem to be convincing.
1) The ‘game’ says that unskilled immigrants are needed for cheap labour. Isn’t this true? All around me I see examples of cheap labour in meat factories and with fruit picking and rubbish collection. Who would do these jobs if there were no immigrants? This is a fair question and it needs a proper answer.
2) I bracket together items like compassion and empathy – feeling that all people need a proper life. Is this a bad thing? Clearly, we are overloaded as an island and our systems are not coping so the implication is that we need to stop people coming in before we collapse. (Have we not already collapsed in areas like the NHS and police and social services? In a way these things are separate discussions.) If our systems are at the point of collapsing, who is to blame? Not the people who live in the country already, obviously.
3) A key point to me is the question of whether all immigrants are the same. It doesn’t seem possible to discuss this in our lives at the moment. Of all western politicians only Trump has dared to voice an opinion.
4) Incompetence is the one that UnHerd members will focus on. Every politician seems to be incompetent, by definition? When is this incompetence ever discussed in a public forum? Why isn’t it discussed? Perhaps the electorate is happy with the politicians?
5) Guilt. This is being taught to all children now in schools. Who will stop it?
There has to be at least one other reason – no discussion is possible without anger or sarcasm. This is why all the doors have closed. Hatred does not allow discussion.
Fair arguments. Nevertheless let me try to answer a couple of them. Your number 1): there is an increasing number of credible studies which say that a lot of cheap labor will be replaced in the next few years by robots. Already a lot of fruit picking is being done by machines, for instance. Secondly if you are on the dole and you’re given a stark choice–pick fruit or lose your monthly state-provided income–you might be more inclined to actually go get your hands dirty. Hence less “need” for foreign workers. Your number 4): I assume you live in the UK, and therefore I say lucky you, you got out of this monster of incompetence which is the EU. The famed Van der Leyen was a total disaster as Minister of Defense, so obviously she became Head of the EU Commission. And true to form she has messed up very badly with the entire issue of the pandemic and the vaccines. Who complains? A lot of people, even some countries in the EU: but what can we do? Can we have her (and most of her acolytes) recalled? Of course not. More to the point: what has the EU done on the issue of immigration? Nothing would be a good answer, but actually it’s even worse than that. In typical EU fashion, the can is being kicked down the road ad infinitum: one must take into account “perceptions,” “sentiments,” “foreign relations,” the wishes of multinationals, etc. etc. This leads to your closing paragraph: while it is true that hatred shuts down discussion, it’s worth noting that, at least in this case, hatred is born out of a terminal case of frustration.
Thank you for your excellent reply.
I am assuming from your name that you live in Italy. Please forgive me if I am wrong.
(Just as an aside, in 2004/5 I worked in a factory in Italy, in Taranto. After the month of holiday in August, almost no-one came to work in September because they had to stay with their families for olive picking.) Indeed, I am sure that you are right and that automation is available in some cases – but, as an engineer, I know that you can design a machine to pick grapes but that same machine will not dig up cabbages. Today we (yes, UK) bring in people for the summer. They move around from cabbages to cauliflowers to fruit and then go home for winter. Some stay. At the moment automation is a hope.
You are absolutely correct about incompetence. I see this everywhere. Another story: I live in Wales, which sort of has its own government, like a state in the USA. We have a parliament and we have elections in May. Wales is very poor and we rely on money coming from England. All of the parties in the election are trying to sell the idea of independence for Wales. Nobody mentions money or how it will happen. They appeal to people saying that we should be proud to be from Wales. All of them are totally incompetent. BUT – about 40% of the people will vote in the election. This makes us all incompetent. People have fought for the vote and then don not use it.
We have to start going in hard against all the listed reasons. Personally I think incompetence is less of a factor than the others. There’s something positively sinister about how the starkly obvious is consistently deflected… nobody and no one wants to take aim at the fact that mass migration is economic suicide and the completely deluded belief that the whole World under one roof brings anything like “strength”. As ever, the situation will have to get so so much more worse before they’ll be even the slightest formal recognition that things are as they are. The plan being it’ll be too late by then. Can’t believe I may have to soon choose a side. That’s how low we’ve been pulled by so many.
” Every influence, every motive, that provokes the spirit of murder among men, impels these mountaineers to deeds of treachery and violence. The strong aboriginal propensity to kill, inherit in all human beings, has in these valleys been preserved in unexampled strength and vigour. That religion, which above all others was founded and propagated by the sword—the tenets and principles of which are instinct with incentives to slaughter and which in three continents has produced fighting breeds of men—stimulates a wild and merciless fanaticism.”
Winston Churchill: The Story of the Malakand Field Force -1898
These are not new problems. They have been well understood for centuries.
The ideological conflict coming soon may well be between Chinese communism and Islam. I would love to know the author of this perceptive article’s thoughts on this and the CCP’s persecution of China’s Uighur Muslims, and the Burmese state’s of Rohinja. Where the West fits into this power struggle is anyone’s guess.
Essay that is excellent and provoking of thoughts that are in need of being provoked.
Some such issues:
Muslims are welcomed, encouraged to come to the West but don’t blend in. We issued the invitation for reasons that are explained, but many who accept it are jihad-minded, passive or not. And the Qur’an tells the believers to stay apart from the unbelievers. It has been said, “We are not here to fit in, but to take over.”. Sharia, not our present forms of government. It has been that way since the early seventh century; may we hope that time and the realities of scientific and social advancements have changed those attitudes. Qur’an, especially chapters eight and nine.
Compassion? If that were the case, the Kennedy-Shriver Peace Corps method would be used, but the infrequently seen powers do not want the third world brought up to first world level. Au contraire, the first world is to be lowered to the third, and, all together now, the third is to be turned into a fourth world/age, with the public owning nothing yet happy.
Did colonization cause this, and is karma forcing moral atonement? Richard von Coudenhove-Kalergi, representing an unseen power behind what he helped create, the European Union, wrote that “The white races of Europe should be destroyed and replaced with a race of Eurasian-Negroids who can be easily controlled by the ruling elite.” (He himself was partly Asian and very elite.). The idea was written I “Praktischer Idealismus,” 1924.
We far from perfect human beings have our work cut out for us: war or peace.
Ms. Hirsi, see what your essay started? Thank you.
I don’t know whether it is political incompetence or political cowardice or both that allows the Muslim colonisation of Europe to continue. Anyway this is a great and thought provoking article in line with Douglas Murray’s “The Strange Death of Europe “
Yet another excellent article from Hirsi Ali. Apart from incompetence, I would suggest another reason: cowardice. The metropolitan woke left, safely in their leafy suburbs, have managed to inject fear into anyone who dares to suggest that immigration presents social problems – both for the immigrant and indigenous populations. Before wokedom there was some success in integration, but now the focus is on diversity, which is divisive. Having failed abysmally to achieve socialism through economic arguments the left has taken up diversity as a means to bring about the collapse of western society.
Even to right wingers, the notion that on some level we’re all human, all part of some continuity of being, is quite a sacred and deeply held idea. It grates to think that there are some elements of our ‘shared humanity’ that belong outside, like a bad dog. We don’t want to believe that.
Hence, the weakness we see so clearly in the leftists – the wet-behind-the-ears idealism – is our weakness too.
I tend to disagree. Yes, i do know that people are human, not equine or protozoa or cabbage. But i don’t regard the human condition as some innately sacrosanct quality – it’s just a species like all the rest.
Humanism is a particularly toxic dogma.
I’m not sure about the incompetence argument. There are plenty of people, in power (therefore shackled) and not in power (unshackled) who are competent. But they fail to make a strong case because 1. It seems racist to do so and 2. They have no solution either.
I would be more impressed by the article if the author had a solution…
Ayaan Hirsi Ali, thank you. You will understand, when I say that the concept of HOMOSEXUALITY is not recognised under ISLAM. If you are the ACTIVE partner then you can do what you want. I’m not going to say more. I think we all get the gist. As a Gay man who travelled throughout North Africa in my twenties, not only was it disturbing to be placed in a room full of RAMPANT men with my female travelling companions (Australian) but they were openly smoking Dope and SECRETLY drinking wine. AND this was at the behest of the WOMEN.
“…be ready for European politicians to speak of a sudden surge and an unforeseeable crisis.”
So true – same in 2015.
‘EU leaders wilfully misunderstand the problems of Muslim immigration.’
As the article suggests, there is a duplicitous game of distraction going on here along with some pretty artful can kicking too. It is, after all, the EU’s modus operandi.
It can’t be by accident that the EU decided in July last year in its projected 7 year budget negotiations to cut border control and migration spending by €8.5bn or 27% and yet apparently paradoxically EU leaders are painfully aware of the problems this mass immigration potentially presents culturally, socially and economically within its own borders.
It’s an open secret that the Union is now in the habit of regularly paying Turkey many billions of Euros in a politically difficult attempt to contain a potential influx of up to 4 million people classed as refugees already there in the hope of staving off a crisis that, frankly, can ever only be exacerbated by one of its unshakable so-called ‘four pillars’, free movement, and that’s whether they’re legally within its borders or not incidentally.
‘EU leaders’, certainly at the national level anyway, lest we forget and so we are led to believe, are theoretically there primarily to act as temporary representatives of the people they were specifically elected by and should be duty bound to represent their interests not to pursue and deliver some dodgy, irreversible ideologically driven political project, merely there as democratic window dressing to act as useful agents for the inevitable, permanently giving away what was never theirs to give in the first place.
Your suggestion is… repellent.
Hopefully you will never find yourself fleeing war, plague, or persecution.
Can somebody actually explain (as this article doesn’t) what it is that Muslims (which is nearly always used as a collective for the whole lot of them, regardless of any nuance) are doing that is so awful?
I know there’s a few Muslim terrorists (as there are from plenty of other groups), many Muslim majority societies are quite repressive (as are many regimes in many non-Muslim majority countries) and they often keep themselves to themselves (as is often found in immigrant societies, particularly early generations). And when they’re not keeping themselves to themselves and not “integrating”, there seems to be the apparent simultaneous counter-objective of Muslims aiming to completely take over our whole way of life. Which is rather paradoxical.
Is the big problem is that they want to live in Western countries? That they have the temerity to want to come and live in the same country as we do?
I could use the exact same argument against the author here. I know plenty of white people who hate them because of their deliberate “misunderstanding” of Islam. They say they’re all benefit scroungers. They’re all drug dealers. They’re all terrorists. Etc.
Which is clearly bollocks. Some of them maybe. But not ALL of them.
Can anybody actually give good reasons why it’s so bad having Muslim immigrants in Western countries? Seriously.
I live in the North of England and I never hear the end of it from people I work with. “They’re invading. They’re taking over. You have to be very frightened of them. It’s important that you know that they’re probably dangerous.”
Then I look around where I live and honestly it just seems the product of decades of fearmongering about the subject. Rather than actually getting to know any Muslims (because they keep themselves to themselves), it’s easier to sit and read an article by some right-wing ideologue and form some narrow opinions that are easy to reconcile with your view of the world.
OK, the next time one of these allegedly awful people in the north of England says something like, “They’re invading. They’re taking over. They have a high level of welfare. They are destroying the social capital. They want to live in their own enclaves. They treat women like second class citizens. They hate Jews’ etc. then you will be able to explain to them why they are wrong. Just out of interest, why exactly are they wrong?
I never said they were awful. Some of them are my own family members. I’m not here for an argument but I suspect I’ll find a few with my comment.
How are they taking over and living in their own social enclaves at the same time?
They have a high level of welfare because they’re often the poorest people in British society. Hardly massive news for an immigrant population. Will they have high welfare levels in fifty years? Probably not but highly likely to be much lower levels as they climb the economic ladder.
What does “destroying the social capital” mean?
Plenty of the white people I know hate women. It’s just an objective observation. I hear plenty of misogynistic tropes thrown around by the white men I know. Is civilisation as we know it collapsing because of that? No, it’s just that a lot of blokes are like that.
Plenty of the white people I know hate Muslims with the same fervency as Muslims hate Jews. What’s the difference?
You: I never said they were awful. Some of them are my own family members.
Me: Being awful and being a family member are not mutually exclusive.
You: I’m not here for an argument but I suspect I’ll find a few with my comment.
Me: Would you have preferred your comment to go uncommented on? Or was it only people who agreed with you that you wanted to hear from? Posting what you did is odd if you were trying to avoid an argument.
You: How are they taking over and living in their own social enclaves at the same time?
Me: Enclaves grow and Muslim enclaves are growing.
You: They have a high level of welfare because they’re often the poorest people in British society.
Me: Yes. Why are they poor? Hindus and Sikhs generally aren’t poor so why are Muslims? Could it have something to do with their religion/culture?
You: What does “destroying the social capital” mean?
Me: It means there is less trust among and between the various racial groups in a society. This is especially true of Muslims, low trust almost certainly being a factor in the low uptake for the Covid vaccine.
You: Plenty of the white people I know hate women.
Me: Really? I can’t say I know any. But even so, woman-haters are a glitch in the West. It’s a feature of Islam.
You: Plenty of the white people I know hate Muslims with the same fervency as Muslims hate Jews. What’s the difference?
Me: We only dislike the West-hating, head-hacking, bomb-planting, Allahu Akbar-shouting Muslims. Muslims hate Jews because simply they are Jews.
Clearly there is a spectrum between modernist Muslims and traditionalist Muslims. Something which the author amisses.
Traditionalist Muslims ranging from the hard to soft are generally the groupings we are referring to and are the ones most likely to balkanise with their distinct cultural values that they elevate above the norms and ethics of the wider society in which they choose to live.
By elevating their own cultural values above the norms of wider society, they are signalling moral superiority. This inevitably draws attention and comparative analysis. So when people perceive that the value systems of traditionalist Muslims do not meet the contemporary Western thresholds for equality, dignity and respect but at the same time are themselves judged by these thresholds (by the media and the establishment), then resentments brew.
This is then further complicated by the Left who simultaneously condone the balkanised sense of superiority despite it not reaching contemporary normative thresholds whilst at the same time condemning those that rightfully feel resentful. This intervention by the Left breeds further resentment whilst allowing these traditionalist Muslims groupings to persist in their ‘unethical’ ways.
Interestingly, this state of affairs inevitably defaults a leftward drift since Leftwing values are continually reinforced through cultural conflict.
This is why it serves the Left to deny the existence of the Culture Wars since denial reinforces cultural conflict and therefore the leftward drift.
By acknowledging the cultural conflict and therefore the disparities between the normative values of traditionalist Muslims and the Western normative values of the media and the establishment, they would then need to acknowledge the dichotomy between the superiority of western norms and inferiority of traditionalist norms or else conclude an equality between the two.
If the former occurs, then traditionalist Muslims will need to conform like everyone else and essentially be demanded to assimilate which will undoubtedly lose the Left votes since there will be no politico-cultural difference between the Left and the Right. If the latter occurs, then the cultural scene is set to reject Western normative values which will undoubtedly lead to further balkanisation across more self determining cultural groupings. Again, this will undoubtedly lose the Left votes as the political spectrum fragments.
Thus the complexity arises as long as the Left protects and denies the selective balkanisation of traditionalist Muslims along with denying there is a culture war, since by doing so forces the Right to assert Equality and Assimilation which loses them votes.
In other words, what is perceived as incompetence is actually the result of democracy and the fact that democracy allows the Machiavellian sophistry of the Left. However the more people that support the Right, that is Assimilationist Equality, the more likely the Machiavellian sophistry of the Left can be defeated.
I’d like to make a couple of points:
– Firstly I think that for many it is not a matter of deliberate misunderstanding or being disingenuous; people really believe they are starting the true position. I suspect this is the sort of tribalism which feels only it’s own views are correct.
– Secondly it would be helpful to have a view on the way out of this confusing mess!
The way out is ethnic nationalism commending the restoration of European homelands to their own peoples; and then the mass repatriation/relocation of the populations come into Europe without its native peoples once being asked if that is what we want.
Have a look at my Interview with AltNewsMedia on the Housing crisis.
The link is on the front page of my web site
Unbelievable.
The result of this willful and cowardly refusal to face reality with regards to Islam, will be catastrophic. Sadly, I think Europe will only learn the hard way.
An excellent article which sums up the dilemma. I would have liked a few suggestions as to how we deal with the unintended, undesirable consequences (of kindness and empathy).
More education in source countries seems to me to be one of the only ways of raising living standards. Education in source countries about the bad things which happen to many migrants could act as a deterrent against making perilous journeys.
There is little evidence that European governments gave much thought to the cultural implications of Muslim immigration when there was a lack of domestic labour to maintain the boom of post-war reconstruction.
The immigration was sustained by the delusion that immigrants would go home when no longer needed. The later development of universal human rights as a creed cemented Islam in place in Europe.
To quell domestic opposition, governments changed the justification for continued immigration to fit political needs. It’s now EU policy to encourage immigration because of falling white European birthrates.
Macron now talks about founding a version of Islam reconciled with European values but he must know that as far as the Islamists entrenched in France’s 800 no-go banlieues are concerned, true Islam is indivisible and unassimilable on European terms.
The fact remains that all of today’s difficulties stem from the thoughtlessness of the 1950s and that there is no going back. It is Europe that will compromise with Islam rather than the other way round, as Michel Houllebecq predicted in his novel Submission.
Houllebecq wasn’t being prescient. He was just facing the facts as they exist which politicians dare not do.
I’d say there are two other reasons for the elite’s approval of immigration, despite its perceived positive and negative impacts, which are probably more foundational than your own.
The first is the pressure of human population growth and a highly related second is the perceived need for economic growth in order to improve standards of living and the wealth of the nation and to sustain GDP/capita (under conditions of population growth).
In other words, immigration, under conditions of human population growth, is seen as an economic/fiscal/monetary multiplier based on the division of labour.
What follows in response to the perceived positive and negative impacts of immigration is the rhetoric you have outlined.
Thus, the reason why elites seem baffled is because of the chicken and egg dilemma of population growth and economic survival and how you manage both.
The failure to manage reproduction whilst trying to sustain economic prosperity results in ecological destruction, war, pestilence, disease, famine and drought, that is, the manifestation of the Book of Revelations.
In this context, the Left bury their heads in the sand and pray to the God of Scientific Socialism
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_socialism
whilst the Right are more naturalistic and pray to the God of Social Darwinism
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_Darwinism
and so are more tolerant to let humans die. Hence the ‘nasty, cruel, cold’ moniker from the ecologically irrational Left. And the ‘woke, victim, outraged’ moniker from the ecologically rational Right.
Thus, in ecological terms, the Left exists to accommodate as many humans as possible whilst trying to stem growing conflicts over scarce resources using Equality and Human Rights. Whilst the Right exists to limit human population growth and growing conflicts over scarce resources using Inequality and Human Responsibilities.
In other words, our politics directly relates to our feeling of how we deal with human population growth.
We cannot escape the Life Death relationship of LIFE even if we try to ignore it. In this respect, the Left politicises their abstention from managing population growth and in the process castigates the Right for trying whilst trying to immolate their conscience with ecological fixes.
That is why the Conservatives are the natural party of government, in the UK at least, and why Conservative liberals are an anathema to Conservative traditionals. Because with a Left party in power, we are inevitably accelerating human population growth and therefore accelerating towards a human growth crisis whether in the form of ecosystem destruction, war, pestilence, disease, famine or drought.
What I don’t understand and would like the author to clarify (and is the same point I raised in the interview of some weeks ago), is what we are supposed to do to stop the misunderstanding game.
I don’t think immigration can or will be stopped. As soon as you close a hole in the borders, another one opens up. Also, I don’t believe that people would cross the Mediterranean to colonise Europe, but to get a better life for them and their children. So, what to do?
That may be an explanation, but NOT an excuse. If “wanting a better life” was an excuse, then every thief, burglar, mugger, robber, rapist, sadist, embezzler would have a handy excuse for their acts.
Oh, it CAN be stopped. The countries who are stopping it are the proof that it can be stopped. If there’s political will and a government committed to its job (ie serving its country), it can be easily stopped. Ultimately, it would be the EU’s job to stop it, were the EU an institution to serve the people of Europe – which it is not. Much on the contrary, the EU is a fundamentally anti-European organisation.
Where is it being stopped?
Hungary, for instance.
Probably a good start is not to assume that everyone who identifies as Muslim is a thief, burglar, mugger, robber, rapist, sadist or embezzler.
If you applied that everyone you encountered, it’s likely that you wouldn’t have many friends in the world.
A lot of commenters are having trouble with the “individual vs. group” polarity.
Here’s an understanding from progressive Christianity which throws some light on the problem:
Socially, we have evolved from a tribal condition, pre-existing until around 3000–2000 BC, which featured a shared group consciousness. The individual not only did not count; individualised consciousness as we know it today did not exist. From around 2000 BC, we began gradually to evolve further towards the self-conscious “I” that we know today. This change was heralded by the Old Testament figure Abraham.
As the new emphasis on the individual emerged, the old group-soul became more and more atavistic; people lost the group’s instinctual, shared knowing.
As new things come in, the old things they are replacing take on the characteristics of the shadow: they become a shadow of their former selves, and with that, they become socially more and more dysfunctional, then outright destructive, before eventually collapsing altogether and disappearing.
Today, we stand on the threshold of another evolutionary advance in consciousness/conscience. The first growing pains are appearing of a shift towards a new type of shared group consciousness, one which transcends the present I-consciousness and, building on it, brings in a new “We”. The value of the individual is not lost; it is improved upon, added to. Just as a person can grow from perceiving only his local community to a wider perception of his national community without losing the earlier worldview, so we can now move on from a national consciousness to a globalised consciousness without losing the love of our country. These things are not static, horizontal back-and-forth ever-repeating polarity conflicts. They are living upward-spiralling evolutionary social movements.
If we now add to this understanding the fact that the old group-consciousness was perceived to be feminine in nature, and the current I-consciousness masculine, the advent of a new feminine in the form of a new We-consciousness/conscience will explain much about current stresses and fault lines in society.
Swedish Greta Thunberg clearly has a fully developed individuality, while simultaneously manifesting a highly developed We-consciousness. Ecological awareness, systems thinking, concern for the planet—all will become more prominent over time. The young are far ahead of their elders in these matters.
Because women’s feminine aspect is turned out to the world, whereas men’s is inward, women will feature more and more in leadership roles as the We-sense evolves. In this light, the true greatness of Angela Merkel as leader can be seen in her response to the recent refugee crisis, which many understandably found incomprehensible: “Wir schaffen das”, she said—We can handle that!
Of course, for every Thunberg or Merkel, there is a still-faceless nameless woman swathed in ego-annihilating social black, or a Thatcher or Priti Patel determined to exceed the worst excesses of the individualistic male ego. And the same goes for the men, of course, since each sex includes both masculine and feminine aspects. We have Monbiot, but also Johnson. But these variations are characteristic of times of transition.
As for Ayaan Hirsi Ali, I believe it is wrong to pigeonhole her on the right wing of politics. From where I stand, she appears to transcend left-right. And few if any of the commenters on this thread appear to have understood this fact.
Greta provides no We solutions and nor does Monbiot. Both are in denial of human population growth, therefore they are both in denial of systems thinking.
Their abiotic perspective is predicated solely on I Consciousness, that is, how do I Survive.
A systems perspective takes into consideration the biotic and the abiotic and the life death relationship that underpins both.
Younger generations believe in the false idol of Scientific Socialism which actively seeks to accommodate as many humans as possible at the detriment of ecological integrity.
The guilt and shame associated with the negative impacts of a growing human population is then resolved, through cognitive dissonance, by green rhetoric.
This separation between I Consciousness and We Consciousness is reflected through the drama mentality of persecutor, victim and rescuer. It is self inflicted due to ecological dissonance and the denial of human population growth which is then projected on to anyone who does not deny the perils of human population growth.
In other words, Greta and Monbiot are simply projecting their own tortured souls and in the process seeking redemption through their Big I.
While confusing Asylum and Immigration (or whatever her confusion game was intended to be doing) Dr Ayaan Hirsi Ali wrote:
How indeed. We could look at practically every country on Earth that receives asylum seekers – all of them have a system to do just that. Some, admittedly, more effective than others.
So why is she trying to confuse the issue of asylum seekers? Is she trying to argue against asylum on the grounds that it’s somehow ‘too difficult’ or ‘too expensive’ (“who will pay for it all“)? Or is it just muslim asylum seekers she opposes?
Her position – and her case – is not entirely clear here.
The whole article is incoherent button-pushing from what I can gather.