* I always thought Pakistanis especially Pakistanis in the UK were the worst immigrant group in the Western world. But I guess Maghrebis and Pakistanis are tied.
Both groups produce a lot of terrorists but are different in personalities. Maghrebis are in your face confrontational while Pakistanis are not physically aggressive so Maghrebis account for more street crime. But Pakistanis appear more engaged in politics (running and voting as a group) so they are able to build power through elections and enable the bad behavior of their people.
I think if Pakistanis and Maghrebis were not allowed to immigrate to the West (or at least a 90% reduction) then half or maybe even more of the strain on the open society in the West would be relieved.
Do you hear that Soros people? Work on policies that curb Maghrebis and Pakistanis immigration and you can achieve your goals.
* “There is a malaise within the community of Moroccan origin,” the mayor of Molenbeek, Françoise Schepmans, said, dismissing arguments that terrorism is a byproduct of religious faith.
Malaise: “a feeling of general discomfort, uneasiness or pain, of being ‘out of sorts’, often the first indication of an infection or other disease.” (Wikipedia)
I have never heard a Muslim announce that he killed out of “malaise”, “uneasiness”, or “discomfort”. Muslims kill, as they proudly and forthrightly proclaim, as an act of submission to the will of Allah.
One wonders what motivation the Lady Mayor of Molenbeek would perceive if a Molenbeek mosque was bombed. Would she wait to see who the bomber was? Or would she announce her decision at the outset: “If the bomber is European, he is a racist beast. If the bomber is Muslim, he was ‘out of sorts’.”
* This kind of madness is breaking out all over and in more severe forms every day. In the interests of epidemiology, I am proposing a system for classifying the various etiologies and prodroma that characterize crazeeee progressive behavior from delusional and nasty to utterly insane and vile beyond belief:
(1) Virtue Display (VD) – loudly denouncing someone for being rational, e.g., “I don’t think that’s the least bit funny!”
(2) Conspicuous Virtue Display (CVD) – VD but taken to a higher level, e.g., doing the same but on the oped pages of a newspaper
(3) Virtue Signaling (VS) – performing some act that demonstrates your virtuous madness to other “progressives”, e.g., saying your four year old son wants to be a girl and therefore should be allowed to peepee in the girls bathroom of his elementary school. Extra CVD points for telling someone who asks whether he’ll pee sitting or standing, “That’s not the least bit funny.”
(4) Conspicuous Virtue Signaling (CVD) — Virtue Signaling done in a particularly egregious manner or in support of something so utterly insane that even some “progressives” blanch, e.g., The recent situation where a convicted sex offender starts a movement to make all public toilet facilities in North Carolina open to all combinations of men/women/boys/girls without exception. Extra points for demanding that a respect for children’s autonomy requires an additional law preventing parents from accompanying children into such public toilet facilities.
(5) Displays of Power (DoP) – DoPs occur when SJWs use whatever resources they have to crush and humiliate normal people (and hopefully cause them physical, economic and psychological harm), e.g., a homosexual pair engaging in a travesty of the wedding ceremony and successfully putting a bakery out of business by suing when the owners refuse, from religious scruples, to make their “wedding” cake.
(6) Conspicuous Displays of Power – CDoPs are DoPs at the community, state, or national level. CDoPS typically involve passing laws that outrage most of a community or restrict the rights of most members of a community for the latest SJW fad, e.g., almost any “progressive” legislative agenda and most policies of the BO administration.
* The New York Times has a tic where their correspondents give descriptions of cities that don’t really fit. No one else would think of calling Brussels, which after all is the European version of DC, “ramshackle”. Incidentally, it is, or at least was, a good place to visit.
The claim about the problems with the North African migrants being due to their being from North Africa, not their being Muslim was funny. This actually doesn’t affect whether or not you want to import these people. The Moroccan soldiers the Allies used in World War 2 were known for being fierce fighters, but for raping any woman they came across. Actually attempts to use Muslim mercenaries recruited from North Africa in Europe have been made repeatedly throughout history, and keep running into this problem. I was just reading about the Napoleonic Wars and Napoleon’s experience with the Mamluke cavalry he recruited in the Imperial Guard. They were great if you needed to scare civilians in places like Spain, but their numbers had to be kept limited because they kept overdoing it.
* The only significant difference between Turkey and all other muslim countries is Ataturk force-fed muslims modern civilization a looooong time ago.
So they will assimilate, to a point, in a way that somewhat reflects the hallucinations of the NYT, but never forget it took a man who was a cross between Mohammed and Mick Jagger in the minds of the Turks to do it.
Someone who carries that much sway, and the intelligence to use it wisely comes once in a century if we’re lucky. I don’t see anyone on the horizon.
Without an Ataturk, you have one big pile of unassimilated muslim shit, acting at the whims of the local cross-eyed mullah.
It’s interesting that bloggers as of late have been popping off about R. Kipling’s “White Man’s Burden” poem, complaining about it being a racist cheerleader tome for imperialism.
First time I read it, I thought it was intended as a dire warning. Seemed to me he was trying to talk us out of it. “The Man Who Would be King” seals the deal. He seemed to be saying we don’t have what it takes to tame the heathens, and we never will.
* Please note: “…anti-immigrant right-wing hooligans” try to stage a rally.
But: “…local youths…began hurling abuse and objects at the police.”
And: “…aggressive North African youths…steal…”
Got it, NYT. Young North Africans breaking the law are youths. Young Belgians protesting their behavior are hooligans. Sounds nuanced enough for me.
* Come to think of it, it’s true that one rarely if ever hears about individual Islamist terrorists who are Turkish. The same can be said – weirdly, it might seem, given their nation’s policies – about Iranians. What sets them apart? A couple of things occur to me, but I’m no expert and could be way off base.
The Turks, like the Persians, are emphatically not Arabic. Part of their identity is built around not being Arabs. The Persians in particular (don’t know if this is true of Turks) look down on Arabs as uncivilized yokels.
Also, both peoples have histories of empire built around their nationality rather than their religion.
In short, they have strong national identities; they are Turks and Persians/Iranians first and everything else second. Perhaps this makes them less susceptible to the appeal of radical Islam.
