I am almost beyond despair for our future as a civilization. Everything I grew up knowing was right is being turned upside down, and commonsense is being strangled. Today in the New York Times Bret Stephens' column was titled, "Bondi Beach Is What ‘Globalize the Intifada’ Looks Like" and the comments section was dominated by those criticizing Stephens for being presumptuous about the motives of the killers in Australia. We are being told to deny what we see with our own eyes.
The progressive way of dealing with problems like this is to firstly pretend even harder that they don't exist and then to explain that it is all whitey's fault anyway. Since all races/religions are exactly the same, if, worldwide, we see that 90% of massacres of this sort are carried out by one particular Identity, the only possible explanation can be that they are acting out because whitey is not showing them enough love. Oh, and Gaza, yes we mustn't forget about Gaza. The solution is to squash, and eventually replace, those who don't have enough love in them. Then everything will be kumbayah.
Which teaches us what? If the lesson is that 'not all Muslims are jihadis', then one cannot disagree. But it does not follow that mass Muslim immigration is a good idea. Those who would advocate for a total ban on Muslim immigration could point out that if such a policy were in place, the brave Mr. Ahmad wouldn't have been there, OTOH neither would the two shooters, and this massacre wouldn't have happened.
I'm alright with it having been left out of the article, but I do feel better informed now that I know it.
I am not sure I follow your position, though, because I'm not really sold that "muslim? Yes/no" is a useful category compared to "lunatic extremist? Yes/no".
I can't say how hard this would be to check, but it seems intuitive to me that the Australian government is not doing as much as possible under their laws to stop extremism, so I'm not sure they're checking.
> "muslim? Yes/no" is a useful category compared to "lunatic extremist? Yes/no".
In an ideal world one could cut off just the short end of the stick. We'd be able to keep Mr. Ahmad but send the jihadis home. Alas, as long as there is a Muslim 'Identity' of a sufficient critical mass, it will continue to spawn jihad even if it also spawns heroes like Ahmad. The only way to stop the former is to expel the entire Identity -- or to keep it small enough that it will tend to evaporate into the broader culture.
IMHO Western nations have to abandon the sweet sounding but actually toxic notion of multiculturalism, reassert their foundational values, and let it be known that anyone who wants to overturn those values will be sent home.
Hmmm. I'm not willing to jettison "multiculturalism", but I sure as hell agree with you that the idea being sold as multiculturalism right now is rotten. I want an America full of all sorts of people, but I want _an America_ full of them.
Sure, so do I. It's a subtle thing tho. Diversity is like salt -- a bit enhances the food, too much ruins it. IMHO every country should be Supremacist -- there should be a very clear idea which group/culture is 'at home' there, and thus makes the rules and decides which elements of Diversity are welcome there and which not. Until the 60s this was the model everywhere. Thus in Western countries I advocate for White Supremacy, just as in Africa I advocate for Black Supremacy, and in Thailand I advocate for Thai Supremacy. However Muslims believe that their religion must be Supreme everywhere and that's a problem we need to face squarely rather than supposing we can love it away.
I think we agree that it would be good if "multiculturalism" wasn't used as a way to squish every traditional culture (and which then gets squished by unruly traditional cultures with violent thugs), but I think we disagree on whether the USA is traditionally white. Do you think there's room for a melting pot nation too? It seems like a fun experiment BUT we would need to make a USA culture and tell people to conform to it. Are there holes in that?
Was the Australian government unable or unwilling to protect its Jewish citizens and visitors? There is a difference although, perhaps, not to the wounded and the dead.
I am almost beyond despair for our future as a civilization. Everything I grew up knowing was right is being turned upside down, and commonsense is being strangled. Today in the New York Times Bret Stephens' column was titled, "Bondi Beach Is What ‘Globalize the Intifada’ Looks Like" and the comments section was dominated by those criticizing Stephens for being presumptuous about the motives of the killers in Australia. We are being told to deny what we see with our own eyes.
Thank you, Yascha, for your words and for sharing Claire's excellent commentary.
The progressive way of dealing with problems like this is to firstly pretend even harder that they don't exist and then to explain that it is all whitey's fault anyway. Since all races/religions are exactly the same, if, worldwide, we see that 90% of massacres of this sort are carried out by one particular Identity, the only possible explanation can be that they are acting out because whitey is not showing them enough love. Oh, and Gaza, yes we mustn't forget about Gaza. The solution is to squash, and eventually replace, those who don't have enough love in them. Then everything will be kumbayah.
The "civilian" who grabbed the gun from one of the killers has a name: Ahmad al-Ahmed.
Which teaches us what? If the lesson is that 'not all Muslims are jihadis', then one cannot disagree. But it does not follow that mass Muslim immigration is a good idea. Those who would advocate for a total ban on Muslim immigration could point out that if such a policy were in place, the brave Mr. Ahmad wouldn't have been there, OTOH neither would the two shooters, and this massacre wouldn't have happened.
I'm alright with it having been left out of the article, but I do feel better informed now that I know it.
I am not sure I follow your position, though, because I'm not really sold that "muslim? Yes/no" is a useful category compared to "lunatic extremist? Yes/no".
I can't say how hard this would be to check, but it seems intuitive to me that the Australian government is not doing as much as possible under their laws to stop extremism, so I'm not sure they're checking.
> "muslim? Yes/no" is a useful category compared to "lunatic extremist? Yes/no".
In an ideal world one could cut off just the short end of the stick. We'd be able to keep Mr. Ahmad but send the jihadis home. Alas, as long as there is a Muslim 'Identity' of a sufficient critical mass, it will continue to spawn jihad even if it also spawns heroes like Ahmad. The only way to stop the former is to expel the entire Identity -- or to keep it small enough that it will tend to evaporate into the broader culture.
IMHO Western nations have to abandon the sweet sounding but actually toxic notion of multiculturalism, reassert their foundational values, and let it be known that anyone who wants to overturn those values will be sent home.
Hmmm. I'm not willing to jettison "multiculturalism", but I sure as hell agree with you that the idea being sold as multiculturalism right now is rotten. I want an America full of all sorts of people, but I want _an America_ full of them.
Sure, so do I. It's a subtle thing tho. Diversity is like salt -- a bit enhances the food, too much ruins it. IMHO every country should be Supremacist -- there should be a very clear idea which group/culture is 'at home' there, and thus makes the rules and decides which elements of Diversity are welcome there and which not. Until the 60s this was the model everywhere. Thus in Western countries I advocate for White Supremacy, just as in Africa I advocate for Black Supremacy, and in Thailand I advocate for Thai Supremacy. However Muslims believe that their religion must be Supreme everywhere and that's a problem we need to face squarely rather than supposing we can love it away.
I think we agree that it would be good if "multiculturalism" wasn't used as a way to squish every traditional culture (and which then gets squished by unruly traditional cultures with violent thugs), but I think we disagree on whether the USA is traditionally white. Do you think there's room for a melting pot nation too? It seems like a fun experiment BUT we would need to make a USA culture and tell people to conform to it. Are there holes in that?
Was the Australian government unable or unwilling to protect its Jewish citizens and visitors? There is a difference although, perhaps, not to the wounded and the dead.