NYT: “Families Don’t Have Borders”

Posted on October 23, 2016 by Luke Ford

Steve Sailer writes: From the New York Times, an article about an illiterate Syrian shepherd’s family brought to Canada by naive Canadians who assume that nuclear families are the global norm:

Ms. Hajj, however, often stayed up for much of the night to converse with relatives seven hours ahead, growing weepy and exhausted by dawn. Like many of the relatives, she had never learned to read or write, so they used WhatsApp to volley short voice recordings. Those messages felt like a lifeline, and the ones that were not harrowing were comforting: greetings for the Eid al-Adha holiday among her 16 half and full siblings, and a running whose-baby-is-cuter photo contest. Sometimes she woke her 10-year-old son, Majed, in the middle of the night for technical help.

She was trying to embrace life in Canada, cheering during her children’s soccer matches and soaking up advice on tummy time and solid food for her 5-month-old, Julia. But her husband worried that the infusions of survivor’s guilt were preventing her from fully entering her new world. She often seemed more connected to the electronic constellation of relatives back home than to the Toronto streets she did not know and the English signs she could not decipher. When the sponsors tutored her in English, she often yawned through the lessons.

Comments at Steve Sailer:

* An illiterate Middle Easterner with 16 siblings, who yawns through her benefactors’ attempts to teach her English – a real asset to Canada.

* Europeans are quite generous and would have easily been parted with funds to house displaced people. But this attitude that these people should be accepted as permanent immigrants who need to be integrated was off everyone’s lips and tone the second it happened. Why were the Germans worried about giving them German lessons? Because everyone knew they were economic migrants, but were still guilt-tripped! Wars don’t last forever and it’d be a drop in the bucket for the ‘international community’ to pay to repair the main cities. (Not that that wouldn’t defeat the purpose of the war to leave Syria in pieces, but maybe Assad will prevail and the neocns will be content with just taking the Syrian army apart and sowing ethnic strife.)

Additionally was the tacit assumption that as intervention against Assad is something partaken in by many Western countries against the interests and will of the general public, particularly the poor, it was the responsibility of those people to deal with the young male spivs. I mean if the MSM says Assad is illegitimate and therefore needs to be ‘regime-changed’ by an angry mob, what does it say about the leadership of the Western world? It seems like the response to a Democratic deficient shouldn’t be an even more unpopular policy that has permanent consequences and represents an existential threat.

It’s this annoying problem of sentiment that makes people never feel like explaining the constellation of emotional motivations. None of this is effective at dealing with people displaced by the fighting, it is only effective at displacing the native populations of Europe. But nobody ever calls them out how inefficient this is or that it goes to serve a bunch of young male spivs, rather than women, children and infirm.

* As a Canadian, I fully admit there is a special, supercilious naivety about us. I think this may have to do with part of the Canadian identity now being predicated on appearing to be morally superior to Americans. One thing is for certain, with the government increasing immigration and refugee levels, our time for being guileless is running out fast. Unlike previous years, the Canadian government is focusing less on economic immigration and more on family reunification and refugee resettlement. The 2011 census showed that Ontario was just under 5 percent Muslim, this was before the Syrian and other refugee influx. On the ground level there is a noticeable shift in the demographics that is palpable in the larger metro areas.

* The one advantage Canada has is that ‘diverse’ people don’t really want to live where it’s that cold.

* Nice highlight of the insanity of the west’s moral vanity when it comes to refugees. I recently had a conversation with a friend from MN on this subject and he insisted that the US has a history of taking in refugees and it would be against our values to end that practice. The conversation then turned to the Somali population and within a few minutes he matter of factly stated that no one in the Twin Cities can stand them and how they add absolutely nothing to society. This inability to say “no” even when perfectly aware of the consequences seems to have taken hold.

* Then why does the US support Israel as a bordered national family?

Also, the concept of family is about borders. There is borderline around who are within the family.

* These problems are going to require stern measures to solve, and I mean really stern measures.

* “Enjoy every sip of cold water, because I have none.”

Isn’t it fair to say that a lot of clannish relationships are based on moral extortion? You are my cousin, you HAVE to help me (get that job/marry your daughter/beat that infidel to pulp etc.). So it is not good will or, God forbid, love, that drives these relations, but a “toxic” culture of mutual exploitation. I against my brother, my brother and I against our cousins etc. The other counts only as a means to an end, not at the same time as an end in itself.

A commonly decent European just would not say that sentence above, neither to a brother nor to a stranger. Compare also those many cases where fathers are trying to extort goodies from our authorities by threatening harm to their own children (often daughters). That just doesn’t compute to our outbreeded brains, so we think, “how desperate and how traumatized must he be”. Well, he is not that desperate, he just found a cheap way to get faster WIFI.

* Michigan is cold too, and it’s been filling up with Arabs for a long time. They find those Small Business Administration 8a loans to be very warming.

* That article is hilarious. The foster mother had him share a room with her 13 year old son and turned her entire family halal. She wasn’t too concerned about the facial and body hair and upper body strength, but she became a bit suspicious by his ability to strip a rifle at a shooting range.

The real tip-off, though, came when he “put the 13-year-old in expert holds, demanded cash and got calls from unknown numbers.”

* Has anyone here paused to consider that the West needs a massive flood of insufferable immigrants stat?

Recall Ryan Enos’ study relating exposure to diversity and a tendency to dislike it. In places like southern CA, we’ve observed a trickle become a flow become a flood. There was nowhere an inflection point great enough to cause sufficient popular upset to manifest sufficient political resistance to the invasion. The 1994 surge nearly did the job, but not quite.

From the ruler’s perspective, overhauling demographics is like making custard. Pour the boiling cream into the eggs slowly. Pour too fast and you’ve got scrambled eggs.

So too could it be with the West at large vis a vis Sailer’s most important graph in the world. The only chance at an asymptotically European Europe is to make Europeans all aware at once and to a great degree the downsides of all that vibrancy. Viewed this way, Merkel’s boner may have been the vaccination which will ultimately save Europe.

* Mr Sailer, you just cannot win — you cannot reason with these people — so forget this incomprehensible ‘Citizenism’ stuff and come out as a White Nationalist — at least then you’ll be called a ‘racist’ for supporting the worthwhile cause of preserving America as a majority white nation.

* If nations shouldn’t have bonds, why should families have bonds?

And since when do globalists care about family values?

I thought that was heteronormative BS.

If the individual is all that counts, who cares if families are separated among various nations? If national unity is meaningless, so is family unity.

Also, why must families be united in the US? Why not back in their home nations? Tell the people to go back and reunite with family.

Immigration patterns are clearly white supremacist. Ask any non-white person where he/she wants to emigrate to, and you never get an egalitarian answer. They never want to move to black Africa, Muslim Middle East, diverse Latin America, or Asia.

They all want to move to white Europe, Canada, Australia/New Zealand, or the US. They want to live with or under whites on the basis that whites are superior at running societies.
They run from their own kind(seen as inferior) and avoid non-white nations(seen as inferior) and come to white nations(seen as superior or preferable), but they accuse whites of ‘racism’.

Even within the US, non-whites want to move to whiter pastures, not to blacker or browner ones.

When non-whites ask whites, “why aren’t you welcoming of us?”, whites should ask, “why are you so eager to flee from your own kind? Racist against your own people? See them as inferior?”

About Luke Ford

I've written five books (see Amazon.com). My work has been covered in the New York Times, the Los Angeles Times, and on 60 Minutes. I teach Alexander Technique in Beverly Hills (Alexander90210.com).
This entry was posted in Canada, Immigration. Bookmark the permalink.