This is where my inner Australian comes out: since religion is a fairy story, if you think you get to act up in the name of your fairy story in my orderly, prosperous, well governed country, then if you want to stay, you have to give it up.
If you're unwilling to give it up, the door is that way.
I entirely agree. In the case of my country (the UK) things are so off the rails that the correct immigration policy now would be (to adapt an old Irish joke) ”Don't start from here!” But for the record, if we had had a serious grown up governing class thirty years ago, the policy should have been to allow immigration only as follows:
- You want to live in the West because you are attracted to it and value and respect its culture and traditions. You don't expect it to learn your language or care about your traditions.
- you understand that it is your job to fit in with the host country; not its job to accommodate you.
- you understand that any benefits will have to be earned and it may be hard at on you at first. Don't like that?....then don't come.
- complain or turn out criminal and you will get sent packing.... and what becomes of you then is your problem entirely.
But, we are told such expectations are inimical to our commitment to freedom. And thus we left the door open to all and expected nothing in return. And now we are shocked at the results.
And we basically intend and desire to impose the same applicable subset of those criteria on those "immigrants" who immigrate from the wombs of our female adult citizens. Clearly it is much more difficult to reject or remove them from our society if they "misbehave" - but a common attitude of relative assimilation is still expected.
And so, in partial answer and agreement with JasonT, we do expect something in return, even for "our very own".
You may dislike religion, but the Muslim does not. He takes his religion very seriously, even when he tells you he doesn't; because that is also part of his religion. We would do well to believe them when they tell us they hate our decadence and mean to use it to destroy us. They believe it, and act on it. Culture makes community and not all cultures are compatible. That does not necessarily make them the enemy, just not good co-citizens.
If we go to the books by Larry Siedentop and Tom Holland (plus Tom's many You Tube videos) we find that the Christian concepts* of individual liberty, personhood, and dignity have so powerfully and successfully impacted our Western culture that even when we no longer accept the divine elements of scripture, etc., we still accept those values and the social stability and economic prosperity that those forms of trust have established for our mutual benefit.
*Perhaps augmented with some Jewish beliefs as well? Also contributions from church cannon law and the Enlightenment. Helen may advise adding Roman law to that mix?
To clarify your perspective, is it your belief that the existence of a creator (higher, universal power) or religions themselves (the various human-invented doctrines for how that conviction is to be practiced) that are fairy stories?
The gods are there to put a full stop to the moral regress - ie: A short form: Why allow migrants? To be kind to people. Why be kind to people? So that society is a good place to live. What is good? Being kind to people. Without a stop to the regress a surprising number of people will interpret "good" as "not getting caught".
Religious peoples form cultures based on what gods have determined to be the right way to live. Secular societies form economies rather than societies and end up being run by the corporate elite.
Are most Austrailians atheist though, Helen? Here in USA I think most people still believe in one fairy story or another. In fact, they plan to "nationalize" at least one with Project 2025.
Fiddling while Rome burns. The current dominant "fairy story" is wokery - making sacred - literally - race, gender and sex in particular. Under this umbrella the bad (illiberal) behaviour of minorities (or in the case of Australia, the female majority) can shelter.
As I understand it, the core issue underlying those intersectional "stories" is Critical Theory, which in turn is really just a combination of, or variant of, Marxism plus Post Modernism's denial of reality. I suppose the acceptance of multiculturalism as a positive value rather than merely a mode of serious and honest study of various cultures is also part of that denial of reality. In the final analysis, Reality Is Not Optional.
I had not heard previously that the Australian version of feminism was especially virulent compared to that of any other nationality. Can you clarify on that ? :-)
I will defer to your greater study of Marx than any that I have ever undertaken. :-)
Interesting that when I tried to search for "dialectical materialism" the searches all mention Marx, Engels, maybe Hegel, but you have to go to the next level to see something about thesis, antithesis, synthesis, etc. I suppose intersectionality wokeness is really mostly about burning it all down, not about any net synthesis afterwards.
One thing I did know for sure about Marx is that his labor theory of value was totally flawed, which should have been obvious to anyone who buys things in a semi free marketplace, where valuations are always subjective.
As an engineer I have to remind myself that "dialectical" does not refer to "dielectric strength", etc. :-)
That's really what the Frankfurt School did, and that is the filter that most people know Marxism through. It's about like understanding Judaism by studying Christianity - well, it's in there, sort of, in bits and pieces.
I think Finnis has easily the better of this because he is not so blind to human nature as Raz. But I agree that they are both wrong for largely the reasons you say.
I see little hope for defunding the whole horrible apparatus, but on immigration and security there are some positive signs that Europe is waking up to the horrible mistake they've made.
Upon induction into the US Army many decades ago, I made the mistake of answering one of their test questions that I did like to take walks in the woods --- so I ended up being assigned to the infantry. :-) [I only avoided deployment to Vietnam at that time because of someone else's administrative actions.]
Now, I like trees and forests and woodland generally, especially over beaches, but I also like the benefits of the "energy slaves" provided by high energy density fossil fuels and nuclear energy. The most effective way to impact and effect good and successful environmental practices, and wild land preservation, is through the high wealth situations such high energy sources can provide.
I don't know about Australia because you seem to have a very pragmatic sense there, but in any country of Europe there is no real tradition of naturalization. I could move to France, and possibly even gain citizenship and the franchise - but socially/culturally I would never be French. Immigration into any country like that is bound to be problematic. Germany certainly experienced it with the embrace of Turkish labor, on supposedly a temporary basis. Does a child born to Turkish parents in Germany really think of himself as a German? Do Germans think of him as a German? People from imperial territories had some claim on the home country, but I don't think the home country ever felt too kindly to that claim, nor was it exercised in mass.
The only country that I can think of that really made wide-open immigration work was the U.S., and we are long removed from that era. We have now abandoned assimilation in favor of balkanizing on identitarian lines. I do not expect that to end well and we have no one to blame but ourselves (actually just a select set of assholes with really bad ideas).
But the example stands that it can work, as long as old-country identities are at least partially shed and commitment to ideals foreign to the old-country (but core to the receiving one) are embraced.
Ann Coulter pointed out some years ago that up to around 1820 the US was being populated mostly by Northern Europeans (and somewhat incidentally Protestants). That created a fairly widely dispersed but semi-homogeneous culture and society, so that when later groups arrived they had a firmly established model to assimilate within (to the extent they could).
Next (I am guessing) the greater opportunities for commercial or industrial success forced or incentivized immigrants to expand beyond their fellow ghetto enclaves, further advancing assimilation. [Nothing succeeds like success! "I don't care what color/ethnicity you are as long as your money is green" Etc.]
A third point was made by someone writing from France (a David Wood??? not sure) a few years ago discussing that when first generation Islamic immigrants accept the benefits of European/ American cultures, their children and grandchildren are bounced between their old Mosque oriented environment and the new world of their parents. They are then subject to radicalization by Islamists when they find 2nd/3rd generation people who can't quite make the jump to the adopted country of their parents -- basically a Judeo-Christian environment on balance -- but also fail to adopt a moderate view of Islam [live and let live...] .
This country had a long bias against Catholics because Catholic authority was centralized in Rome. It eventually died out (or is so minuscule now as to be un-noticeable). Radical religious factions are a fact of life in this country - from the Quakers and Amish to Jim Jones and David Koresh. Sometimes that gets bloody (even though mostly it doesn't), but that is the price we pay for all of our rights.
Multiculturalism is an indication that the governing class does not value the native culture. This is an inevitable consequence of the way the education system turns its elite into "anywhere people".
Taqiyya is also practiced by communists and International Socialists/Trotskyists and other authoritarian parties in a democracy. Why authoritarians are allowed to stand in democratic elections is a mystery. However, all the parties lie and actually represent narrow interest groups.
My Mum was something of a moral philosopher, and reading this reminded me strongly of a conversation I had with her in the 80's, on exactly this. She covered much of the same ground and came to the same conclusions. She very clearly saw our current predicament coming, but being something of a libertarian she knew she needed to work out how her prescriptions fitted into an "ordered liberty" framework. But she also worked in a truly Catholic social justice/action imperative (not the bullshit Catholic Social Justice espoused by Bishops Conferences and the like - Mum had actually read Rerum Novarum and the related encyclicals).
"John Finnis, who argues (among many other things) that discrimination on the basis of both religion and nationality—but not race—is justified."
Well here in the USA, Project 2025 is all set to start taking away religious freedom and start discriminating against religions other than Christianity. I guess the only "good" thing about it is that Christians themselves are constantly at idealogical war with each other, what with Protestants saying Catholics worship Satan and Catholics saying they are the one true church and nobody gets to heaven unless they get catachized in the Catholic Church. So the rest of us citizens are out here wondering which sect of Christianity is going to "Christian Nationalism" our country.
Islam teaches that conquest can be achieved through jihad (war) or hijrah (migration). How do you propose to counter this, or do you?
This is where my inner Australian comes out: since religion is a fairy story, if you think you get to act up in the name of your fairy story in my orderly, prosperous, well governed country, then if you want to stay, you have to give it up.
If you're unwilling to give it up, the door is that way.
I entirely agree. In the case of my country (the UK) things are so off the rails that the correct immigration policy now would be (to adapt an old Irish joke) ”Don't start from here!” But for the record, if we had had a serious grown up governing class thirty years ago, the policy should have been to allow immigration only as follows:
- You want to live in the West because you are attracted to it and value and respect its culture and traditions. You don't expect it to learn your language or care about your traditions.
- you understand that it is your job to fit in with the host country; not its job to accommodate you.
- you understand that any benefits will have to be earned and it may be hard at on you at first. Don't like that?....then don't come.
- complain or turn out criminal and you will get sent packing.... and what becomes of you then is your problem entirely.
Dream on.
But, we are told such expectations are inimical to our commitment to freedom. And thus we left the door open to all and expected nothing in return. And now we are shocked at the results.
And we basically intend and desire to impose the same applicable subset of those criteria on those "immigrants" who immigrate from the wombs of our female adult citizens. Clearly it is much more difficult to reject or remove them from our society if they "misbehave" - but a common attitude of relative assimilation is still expected.
And so, in partial answer and agreement with JasonT, we do expect something in return, even for "our very own".
You may dislike religion, but the Muslim does not. He takes his religion very seriously, even when he tells you he doesn't; because that is also part of his religion. We would do well to believe them when they tell us they hate our decadence and mean to use it to destroy us. They believe it, and act on it. Culture makes community and not all cultures are compatible. That does not necessarily make them the enemy, just not good co-citizens.
If we go to the books by Larry Siedentop and Tom Holland (plus Tom's many You Tube videos) we find that the Christian concepts* of individual liberty, personhood, and dignity have so powerfully and successfully impacted our Western culture that even when we no longer accept the divine elements of scripture, etc., we still accept those values and the social stability and economic prosperity that those forms of trust have established for our mutual benefit.
*Perhaps augmented with some Jewish beliefs as well? Also contributions from church cannon law and the Enlightenment. Helen may advise adding Roman law to that mix?
You’ll need some toxic masculinity to get them out the door. Why do the men do this?
Seriously? Why?
To clarify your perspective, is it your belief that the existence of a creator (higher, universal power) or religions themselves (the various human-invented doctrines for how that conviction is to be practiced) that are fairy stories?
Religion is a way of life.
The gods are there to put a full stop to the moral regress - ie: A short form: Why allow migrants? To be kind to people. Why be kind to people? So that society is a good place to live. What is good? Being kind to people. Without a stop to the regress a surprising number of people will interpret "good" as "not getting caught".
Religious peoples form cultures based on what gods have determined to be the right way to live. Secular societies form economies rather than societies and end up being run by the corporate elite.
Are most Austrailians atheist though, Helen? Here in USA I think most people still believe in one fairy story or another. In fact, they plan to "nationalize" at least one with Project 2025.
Fiddling while Rome burns. The current dominant "fairy story" is wokery - making sacred - literally - race, gender and sex in particular. Under this umbrella the bad (illiberal) behaviour of minorities (or in the case of Australia, the female majority) can shelter.
As I understand it, the core issue underlying those intersectional "stories" is Critical Theory, which in turn is really just a combination of, or variant of, Marxism plus Post Modernism's denial of reality. I suppose the acceptance of multiculturalism as a positive value rather than merely a mode of serious and honest study of various cultures is also part of that denial of reality. In the final analysis, Reality Is Not Optional.
I had not heard previously that the Australian version of feminism was especially virulent compared to that of any other nationality. Can you clarify on that ? :-)
Marxism minus dialectical materialism; in other words Marxism devoid of the single most defining characteristic.
I will defer to your greater study of Marx than any that I have ever undertaken. :-)
Interesting that when I tried to search for "dialectical materialism" the searches all mention Marx, Engels, maybe Hegel, but you have to go to the next level to see something about thesis, antithesis, synthesis, etc. I suppose intersectionality wokeness is really mostly about burning it all down, not about any net synthesis afterwards.
One thing I did know for sure about Marx is that his labor theory of value was totally flawed, which should have been obvious to anyone who buys things in a semi free marketplace, where valuations are always subjective.
As an engineer I have to remind myself that "dialectical" does not refer to "dielectric strength", etc. :-)
That's really what the Frankfurt School did, and that is the filter that most people know Marxism through. It's about like understanding Judaism by studying Christianity - well, it's in there, sort of, in bits and pieces.
https://bettinaarndt.substack.com/
https://fiamengofile.substack.com/
I think Finnis has easily the better of this because he is not so blind to human nature as Raz. But I agree that they are both wrong for largely the reasons you say.
I see little hope for defunding the whole horrible apparatus, but on immigration and security there are some positive signs that Europe is waking up to the horrible mistake they've made.
Is the US?
I suspect our Nov. election will demonstrate that one way or the other (unless we fail to check potential election cheating in some serious level).
Which, I dare say, will be the case.
Less of a problem, believe it or not. But plenty of signs that the US is becoming/has become more sensitive to this.
One may hope.
My criterion is simple and hopefully inoffensive: do you like trees? 'Cuz we like trees.
Upon induction into the US Army many decades ago, I made the mistake of answering one of their test questions that I did like to take walks in the woods --- so I ended up being assigned to the infantry. :-) [I only avoided deployment to Vietnam at that time because of someone else's administrative actions.]
Now, I like trees and forests and woodland generally, especially over beaches, but I also like the benefits of the "energy slaves" provided by high energy density fossil fuels and nuclear energy. The most effective way to impact and effect good and successful environmental practices, and wild land preservation, is through the high wealth situations such high energy sources can provide.
Yes
The debate on the gender of angels intersects with the number of angels on the head of a pin.
I don't know about Australia because you seem to have a very pragmatic sense there, but in any country of Europe there is no real tradition of naturalization. I could move to France, and possibly even gain citizenship and the franchise - but socially/culturally I would never be French. Immigration into any country like that is bound to be problematic. Germany certainly experienced it with the embrace of Turkish labor, on supposedly a temporary basis. Does a child born to Turkish parents in Germany really think of himself as a German? Do Germans think of him as a German? People from imperial territories had some claim on the home country, but I don't think the home country ever felt too kindly to that claim, nor was it exercised in mass.
The only country that I can think of that really made wide-open immigration work was the U.S., and we are long removed from that era. We have now abandoned assimilation in favor of balkanizing on identitarian lines. I do not expect that to end well and we have no one to blame but ourselves (actually just a select set of assholes with really bad ideas).
But the example stands that it can work, as long as old-country identities are at least partially shed and commitment to ideals foreign to the old-country (but core to the receiving one) are embraced.
A couple aspects to this US success.
Ann Coulter pointed out some years ago that up to around 1820 the US was being populated mostly by Northern Europeans (and somewhat incidentally Protestants). That created a fairly widely dispersed but semi-homogeneous culture and society, so that when later groups arrived they had a firmly established model to assimilate within (to the extent they could).
Next (I am guessing) the greater opportunities for commercial or industrial success forced or incentivized immigrants to expand beyond their fellow ghetto enclaves, further advancing assimilation. [Nothing succeeds like success! "I don't care what color/ethnicity you are as long as your money is green" Etc.]
A third point was made by someone writing from France (a David Wood??? not sure) a few years ago discussing that when first generation Islamic immigrants accept the benefits of European/ American cultures, their children and grandchildren are bounced between their old Mosque oriented environment and the new world of their parents. They are then subject to radicalization by Islamists when they find 2nd/3rd generation people who can't quite make the jump to the adopted country of their parents -- basically a Judeo-Christian environment on balance -- but also fail to adopt a moderate view of Islam [live and let live...] .
This country had a long bias against Catholics because Catholic authority was centralized in Rome. It eventually died out (or is so minuscule now as to be un-noticeable). Radical religious factions are a fact of life in this country - from the Quakers and Amish to Jim Jones and David Koresh. Sometimes that gets bloody (even though mostly it doesn't), but that is the price we pay for all of our rights.
Quakers are not radical. They are about as milquetoast as they come.
Multiculturalism is an indication that the governing class does not value the native culture. This is an inevitable consequence of the way the education system turns its elite into "anywhere people".
Once the native culture has gone the country is changed forever - see https://therenwhere.substack.com/p/why-did-the-english-self-destruct It becomes a football for the corporate elite to play with.
Taqiyya is also practiced by communists and International Socialists/Trotskyists and other authoritarian parties in a democracy. Why authoritarians are allowed to stand in democratic elections is a mystery. However, all the parties lie and actually represent narrow interest groups.
See https://www.equalityhumanrights.com/equality/equality-act-2010/your-rights-under-equality-act-2010/race-discrimination. In the Equality Act, race can mean your colour, or your nationality (including your citizenship). It can also mean your ethnic or national origins, which may not be the same as your current nationality.
"I do not want to be the government official who paraphrases Star Trek...."
"who [adapts] Star Trek...."
(Pedantic? I?)
N
This is a very good, very necessary piece.
My Mum was something of a moral philosopher, and reading this reminded me strongly of a conversation I had with her in the 80's, on exactly this. She covered much of the same ground and came to the same conclusions. She very clearly saw our current predicament coming, but being something of a libertarian she knew she needed to work out how her prescriptions fitted into an "ordered liberty" framework. But she also worked in a truly Catholic social justice/action imperative (not the bullshit Catholic Social Justice espoused by Bishops Conferences and the like - Mum had actually read Rerum Novarum and the related encyclicals).
"John Finnis, who argues (among many other things) that discrimination on the basis of both religion and nationality—but not race—is justified."
Well here in the USA, Project 2025 is all set to start taking away religious freedom and start discriminating against religions other than Christianity. I guess the only "good" thing about it is that Christians themselves are constantly at idealogical war with each other, what with Protestants saying Catholics worship Satan and Catholics saying they are the one true church and nobody gets to heaven unless they get catachized in the Catholic Church. So the rest of us citizens are out here wondering which sect of Christianity is going to "Christian Nationalism" our country.