A Philosopher's Blog

Obligations to Refugees

Posted in Ethics, Law, Politics by Michael LaBossiere on September 30, 2015

As this is being written, large numbers of people are fleeing conflict and economic woes in the Middle East, Africa and other parts of the world. As with past exoduses, some greet the refugees with kindness, some with indifference and some with hate. As a philosopher, my main concern is with the ethics regarding obligations to refugees.

One way to approach the matter of moral obligations to refugees is to apply the golden rule—to do unto others as we would have them do unto us. While most of those who read this are living lives of relatively good fortune, it is easy enough to imagine one’s living falling apart due to war or other disaster—human made or natural. In such circumstances, a person would almost certainly want to be helped. As such, if the golden rule has moral validity, then help should be rendered to the refugees.

One objection to this claim is that people should solve their own problems. In the case of Syria, it could be contended that the Syrians should stay and fight. Or, at the very least, they should not expect others to do their work for them. In the case of those trying to find a better life elsewhere, it could be argued that they should remain in their home countries and build a viable economy. These are, of course, variations on the usual “pull yourself up by your own bootstraps” arguments.

One could also advance a house analogy. Imagine, if you will, that the neighbors down the road are fighting among themselves and wrecking their house. Some of them, tired of the conflict, show up at your door and insist that you put them up and feed them. Though it might be awfully nice to help them, it could also be said that they should put their own house in order. After all, you have managed to keep your family from falling into chaos and they should be able to do the same. There is also the concern that they will wreck your house as well.

This analogy, obviously enough, assumes that the fighting and wrecking began in the house and that no outsider assisted in inflicting the conflict. If, for example, people were just jammed arbitrarily into the houses and then subject to relentless outside interference, then the inhabitants would not bear full responsibility for their woes—so the problems they would need to solve would not be entirely their own. This would seem to provide a foundation for an obligation to help them, at least on the part of those who helped cause the trouble.

If, as another example, the house was invaded from the outside, then that would certainly change matters. In this case, the people fleeing the house would be trying to escape criminals and it would certainly be a wicked thing to slam the door in the face of victims of crime.

As a final example, if the head of the household was subjecting the weaker members of the household to domestic abuse, then it would also change the situation in relevant ways. If beaten and abused people showed up at one’s door, it would be heartless to send them back to be beaten and abused.

Interestingly, the house analogy can also be repurposed into a self-interest argument for taking in refugees. Imagine, if you will, a house of many rooms that were once full of people. Though the house is still inhabited, there are far fewer people and many of them are old and in need of care. There is much that needs to be done in the house, but not enough people to do it all.

Nearby are houses torn with violence and domestic abuse, with people fleeing from them. Many of these people are young and many are skilled in doing what needs to be done in the house of many rooms. As such, rational self-interest provides an excellent reason to open the doors and take in those fleeing. The young immigrants can assist in taking care of the native elderly and the skilled can take up the slack in regards to the jobs. In this case, acting in self-interest would seem to coincide with doing the right thing.

There are, of course, at least two obvious counters to this self-interest analogy. One is the moral problem of taking in people out of self-interest while letting the other houses fall into ruin. This does suggest that a morally superior approach would be to try to bring peace to those houses. However, if peace is unlikely, then taking in those fleeing those houses would seem to be morally acceptable.

Another is a practical concern—that some of those invited in will bring ruin and harm to their new house. While this fear is played up, the danger presented by refugees seems to be rather low—after all, they are refugees and not an invading army. That said, it would be quite reasonable to consider the impact of refugees and to take due care in screening for criminals.

 

My Amazon Author Page

My Paizo Page

My DriveThru RPG Page

Follow Me on Twitter

69 Responses

Subscribe to comments with RSS.

  1. ronster12012 said, on September 30, 2015 at 9:14 am

    Michael

    Interesting topic…

    ………………………………………………………..
    “One way to approach the matter of moral obligations to refugees is to apply the golden rule—to do unto others as we would have them do unto us. ”
    …………………………………………………………

    Is the Golden Rule an absolute rule or are there nuances? Should I take in the unfortunate neighbours forever? Should I let my own kids starve in order to assist strangers? Should I turn my own house into a hell that will make me hate them eventually and them resent me?

    ………………………………………………………….
    “In the case of Syria, it could be contended that the Syrians should stay and fight. ”
    …………………………………………………………..

    The usual suspects(US, UK, Israel, Saudi and tag along Eurocucks) should keep their fingers out of Syria. Better they don’t play geopolitical games and arm Al CIAda/ISIS/Al Nusra etc to do their dirty work for them, then no refugees….simple. Better still that we revolt against this transnational elite.
    The Syrians were doing quite well till someone decided that their regime should be changed.

    …………………………………………………………….
    “As such, if the golden rule has moral validity, then help should be rendered to the refugees.”
    …………………………………………………………….

    Perhaps their moslem brothers should help first. Saudi puts up millions of hajjis every year in nice aircon tents….why shouldn’t they have a chance to shhow the world moslem charity.

    …………………………………………………………………
    “As a final example, if the head of the household was subjecting the weaker members of the household to domestic abuse, then it would also change the situation in relevant ways. If beaten and abused people showed up at one’s door, it would be heartless to send them back to be beaten and abused.”
    …………………………………………………………………

    Are you suggesting that western countries should take in all allegedly abused people from anywhere in the world?
    Are you also suggesting that the allegations against Assad are anything but propaganda?

    ……………………………………………………………………

    “Interestingly, the house analogy can also be repurposed into a self-interest argument for taking in refugees. Imagine, if you will, a house of many rooms that were once full of people. Though the house is still inhabited, there are far fewer people and many of them are old and in need of care. There is much that needs to be done in the house, but not enough people to do it all.’
    ……………………………………………………………………..

    No self interest there, unless you are talking about for those that stand to make a buck or ten out of a refugee influx….privatize the profits and socialize the losses(as is usually the case).
    There are enough of our own to do all the work. And, since it has been predicted that the next wave(soon to arrive) will make obsolete 40-60% of all current jobs….what are refugees going to do?

    By assuming that they will be taking jobs you seem to be assuming that they will be in our countries permanently??? Why the permanency? Surely if they are taken in it should only be on a strictly temporary basis,no? Just because the people up the road are in trouble that is no reason to take them in forever, is it?

    Just a question….are you in favour of race replacement? Bring in enough of those with an entirely different culture and one is effectively changing the nation. Merkel recently said this(rope+lamppost for her)approvingly.

    To deliberately destroy a culture is genocide as per UN…unless it is white people?

    ………………………………………………………………………………

    “Another is a practical concern—that some of those invited in will bring ruin and harm to their new house. While this fear is played up, the danger presented by refugees seems to be rather low—after all, they are refugees and not an invading army. ”
    ……………………………………………………………………………….

    The difference between an invading army(which may or may not stay)and millions of permanent unassimilable arrivals who will soon exert their own political power is minimal given enough time.

    cheers

  2. TJB said, on September 30, 2015 at 10:00 am

    I personally think it is crazy to import all of the pathologies of the Middle East into our own societies.

    Sure, help the refugees by sending money…but the refugees should stay in the Middle East.

    • ronster12012 said, on September 30, 2015 at 10:42 am

      TJ

      My sentiments entirely. If this refugee crisis is genuine and not a contrived part of another game(Koudenhove Kalergi plan) then simply lease a Greek island, set up facilities and look after them for the duration. Instead the plan seems to be to permanently resettle them in Europe, with all the cost and aggravation that entails.

    • Michael LaBossiere said, on October 1, 2015 at 5:46 pm

      This assumes that the refugees are mostly bad or unusually damaged people. Most of them seem to be normal people who would rather not be killed or kill.

      • TJB said, on October 1, 2015 at 5:57 pm

        “This assumes that the refugees are mostly bad or unusually damaged people.”

        Not at all. The pathologies of the Middle East are caused by the attitudes and the beliefs of the people who live there. It is reasonable to believe that the refugees carry these attitudes and beliefs with them.

        I’m not talking necessarily about killing. I am thinking of their attitudes toward women, homosexuals, infidels, etc. It is this belief system that causes their societies to fail.

        • Michael LaBossiere said, on October 2, 2015 at 1:01 pm

          Is there any evidence that refugees from the Middle East are significantly more likely to engage in rape than domestic folks?

          Also, we have plenty of people with negative attitudes towards women, homosexuals, infidels and such right here at home.

          • TJB said, on October 2, 2015 at 5:40 pm

            Mike, full quote below. What “misunderstandings” do you think the headmaster is referring to that involve girls wearing short skirts?

            At Pocking, another well-kept Bavarian town, the headmaster of the grammar school wrote to parents telling them not to let their daughters wear skimpy clothing. This was to avoid ‘misunderstandings’ with 200 migrants who were put up in the school’s gymnasium over the summer, before being moved on this month.

            The letter to parents said the migrants were ‘mainly Muslim, and speak Arabic. They have their own culture. Because our school is directly next to where they are staying, modest clothing should be warn… revealing tops or blouses, short skirts or miniskirts could lead to misunderstandings.’

            • Michael LaBossiere said, on October 5, 2015 at 12:32 pm

              Are you implying that the headmaster was worried that there would be a gang rape of the students if they did not wear modest clothing?

            • TJB said, on October 6, 2015 at 6:41 am

              I am inferring the headmaster was worried that skimpy clothes might cause the refugees to believe the girls deserve to be raped. Do I need to find the “uncovered meat” quote?

            • ronster12012 said, on October 6, 2015 at 7:15 am

              TJ

              The ‘uncovered meat’ quote was by an moslem preacher who happened to be in Australia(of course I could never say Australian moslem preacher……no such thing) who said it 15 or so years ago in relation to gang raping Lebanese young men, who were subsequently sent to jail for many many years(I forget how many).

              Such vibrancy, such enrichment we are so lucky to have them here…………….

              Interestingly if a white male had said such a thing we’d never hear the end of it, wall to wall flocks of screeching Social Justice Warriors demanding the offender be sent to a reeducation camp but since it was a more exotic specie of male…..not a word. That’s why I consider SJWs to be mentally ill.

          • ronster12012 said, on October 3, 2015 at 9:13 am

            Michael

            http://www.amren.com/news/2015/05/sweden-rape-capital-of-the-west/ and it isn’t because of swedish men ( who are too cucked to even think of rape).

  3. TJB said, on September 30, 2015 at 10:22 am

    Mike, how would you respond to a woman who had been brutally raped by one of the refugees?

    • ronster12012 said, on September 30, 2015 at 10:47 am

      She’s just been ‘culturally enriched’……actually rapes and assaults against members of the host nation are considered mere collateral damage and of no consequence. See how in Rotherham UK when 1800 young vulnerable white girls were groomed, raped and prostituted by pakistani gangs the so-called authorities turned their backs on the problem, denied it even occurred and threatened one woman who wrote a report revealing it. Cucks and traitors…

    • Michael LaBossiere said, on October 1, 2015 at 5:47 pm

      Presumably the same way I would respond to a woman who has been brutally raped by a relative, “friend”, fellow citizen, or whoever. Are these refugees like Trump’s Mexicans?

      • TJB said, on October 1, 2015 at 6:24 pm

        I see. You import the rapist, but feel no accountability for his deeds.

        This is morally similar to a person who starts a building on fire but feels no responsibility for those inside who die in the flames.

        • Michael LaBossiere said, on October 2, 2015 at 1:04 pm

          How would I be accountable for the rapist?

          Suppose a disaster hits a US city and I advocate that the people fleeing the wreckage be taken in by other states and cities. If one of those people commits a crime, am I accountable? Should I advocate that people fleeing disaster be assumed to be rapists and locked out?

          • ronster12012 said, on October 6, 2015 at 10:35 am

            Michael

            That is not really an equivalent case. Relative homogeneity means that any crimes probably would have happened anyway so don’t really count.

            A better concept is that of negligence. If it can be reasonably foreseen by a average person that person Z doing X will cause Y harm then it can be said that person Z is responsible for that harm.

            We are not talking about individual crimes but crime in aggregate. So, if person Z says “I have a great idea, let’s import 100000 young male moslems into a western liberal democracy for a laugh” and his offsider says “won’t there be a cultural clash, misunderstandings and misunderstood signals causing general social mayhem for the hosts?” and person Z says” screw ’em, they are either dickless cucks or whores, and they’ll get used to it, and I want my Nobel Peace Prize for being so moral……and plus I’m being blackmailed into it anyhow, someone has the dirt on me so I may as well look good”
            then it can be reasonably said that person Z is responsible for that situation especially after ignoring reasonable advice. In this case to act recklessly against the interests of one’s society or country for personal gain or ideology is not only negligence but treason, no?

  4. TJB said, on September 30, 2015 at 10:30 am

    Mike’s policy at work:

    In other parts of the country, Germans are being told to adapt their lifestyles when migrants arrive.

    Police in the Bavarian town of Mering, where a 16-year-old girl was reportedly raped this month, have warned parents not to allow their children outside unaccompanied.

    Girls and women have been told not to walk home alone from the railway station because it is near a migrant centre where the rapist may live.

    At Pocking, another well-kept Bavarian town, the headmaster of the grammar school wrote to parents telling them not to let their daughters wear skimpy clothing. This was to avoid ‘misunderstandings’ with 200 migrants who were put up in the school’s gymnasium over the summer, before being moved on this month.

    The letter to parents said the migrants were ‘mainly Muslim, and speak Arabic. They have their own culture. Because our school is directly next to where they are staying, modest clothing should be warn… revealing tops or blouses, short skirts or miniskirts could lead to misunderstandings.’

    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3249667/Germany-state-SIEGE-Merkel-cheered-opened-floodgates-migrants-gangs-men-roaming-streets-young-German-women-told-cover-mood-s-changing.html

  5. ajmacdonaldjr said, on September 30, 2015 at 10:42 am

  6. ajmacdonaldjr said, on September 30, 2015 at 10:45 am

  7. TJB said, on September 30, 2015 at 12:13 pm

    Sometimes a cigar is just a cigar, and sometimes people who shout “Death to America” really do hate you and want you dead.

  8. ronster12012 said, on September 30, 2015 at 12:50 pm

    Michael

    Do so-called democratic governments have an obligation to seek an endorsement from the electorate before imposing mass population invasions on their people?
    If yes, then failure to do so amounts to treason, no?

    If they are not obligated to seek an endorsement for such a massive change then can they be called democratic? If they are not in fact not actually democratic then that must mean there has been a silent coup sometime in the past as all our countries were supposedly democratic at one time. If that is the case then our current govcorps are illegitimate. Where is that reasoning wrong?

    • nailheadtom said, on October 1, 2015 at 6:53 am

      You’re starting to get the picture. The “democracy” charade is just that.

    • Michael LaBossiere said, on October 1, 2015 at 5:49 pm

      Democratic states have to follow the democratic process. But, when people elect leaders they are providing that endorsement. Congress, for example, does not need to get a specific new endorsement from the people each time they pass a law.

      • nailheadtom said, on October 1, 2015 at 6:39 pm

        Well, sure, that’s why democracy is a charade. First of all, it ain’t democracy, even if each individual has one vote. It’s a republic, where those interested enough to vote select power-hungry busybodies to decide some fairly important things in their lives. Interestingly enough, people that cut hair, drive, fix air conditioners, operate taxis, install plumbing, etc. need to have government licenses to do those things. Politicians, who become government officials, leaders if you will, who have the capability of sending thousands to their deaths and creating economic feast or famine for millions, aren’t required to have any kind of certification as to their acumen. A person that works with refrigerants needs an EPA license, the head of the EPA does not.

      • ronster12012 said, on October 3, 2015 at 9:22 am

        So that essentially means giving carte blanche to politicians. At what point does it become morally acceptable to revolt? Just because an ad hoc system, in this case called democracy, says that politicians can make decisions on your behalf…..there does come a point when the people can rightfully say no.
        Everyone has the right to revolt obviously…..or else you would still be singing ‘God Save The Queen’.

  9. ronster12012 said, on October 1, 2015 at 11:18 am

    I just came across this article showing this Pope to be such an incredible hypocrite….lecturing others to take in refugees/opportunists(take your pick) but the Vatican itself has the most restrictive immigration policies in the world.

    http://www.westernjournalism.com/pope-francis-lectured-the-us-on-immigration-but-forgot-to-mention-this-about-the-vatican/

    Also in a slightly similar vein, an aussie anti moslem activist group tried to get members of the public in one of Australia’s wealthiest suburbs to sign a petition calling for the resettlement of 12000 Syrian benefit seekers in that area……….while dressed up in moslem garb. No way were they having any of that…

    https://www.partyforfreedom.org.au/2015/09/28/sharing-cultural-diversity-in-malcolms-electorate/

    So when opinion makers call for ‘diversity’ and ‘obligation’ etc etc they don’t mean that for themselves….hell no……it’s only for others.

    • Michael LaBossiere said, on October 1, 2015 at 5:53 pm

      To be fair to the Pope, Vatican City is 109 acres. They can hardly have a very open immigration policy unless they start building mega skyscrapers and underground housing.

      • ronster12012 said, on October 3, 2015 at 9:24 am

        Michael

        Let them take in 109 refugees, that’s only 1 per acre lol. I’d be more impressed with him if he did that.

  10. ronster12012 said, on October 6, 2015 at 4:55 am

    Michael

    Thinking further about your house analogy today it occurred to me that you have presented only half the story.

    The other half is what obligations do ‘refugees’* have to host societies?

    To use the house analogy, do the other inhabitants of the house have a say in what the head of the household does? Do they get a veto? Do they get to overturn his decisions if it causes ongoing disharmony in the household or if he is insane?

    Do the guests gain a legal interest in the host’s house and other property simply by residing there?

    What happens if they refuse to go, is the offer of asylum irrevocable?

    Should the guests be expected to conform to the rules of the house?

    What is to be done if they refuse?

    What do the guests owe the host? Money? Work?

    Should they be treated the same as the hosts? That may be problematic as then they could refuse to follow the rules of the house. So exactly what status should guests have vis a vis the hosts?

    * May contain economic opportunists, religious infiltrators and extremists, terrorists and those that despise the values of the host society.

  11. TJB said, on November 14, 2015 at 12:34 pm

    Mike, looks like at least some of the terrorists who attacked Paris were “refugees.” I wish I could say I was surprised.

    This was an easily avoidable tragedy. What’s more, the show is just getting started.

    • ronster12012 said, on November 15, 2015 at 3:50 am

      TJ

      It’s going to get a lot uglier before it gets prettier….though hopefully if a full on race war in Europe gets going soon the people will wake up, expel the invaders, hang the traitors(from Merkel downwards)and reset the culture and political system all will end well.

      That may sound like ‘crazy talk’ but many seem to pussyfoot around these issues.What are the real alternatives?
      Somehow exist under an increasingly tyrannical political system, needed to force the locals to ‘tolerate’ the invaders while their numbers inexorably increase? That is no future…

      Mike used an analogy in the OP. That of neighbours in need. Fits in many ways though there are problems and questions I have noted(without an answer)…..but another and better(IMHO)analogy is that of society and a human body. Many functions working in harmony. The immune system senses what is or is not part of that body. If it is not part of the body it will be neutralized then eliminated. If a substance eaten cannot be assimilated into the body it will be shat out or vomited out…and the body survives.

      • wtp said, on November 15, 2015 at 9:57 am

        Or not and the body dies.

        You made several salient points in your extension and questioning of Mike’s, I think rather weak, house analogy and yet over a month later and no response. Surprised by this? I’m not.

        • ronster12012 said, on November 15, 2015 at 11:00 am

          WTP

          I think that Mike’s house analogy was a bit limited in scope.The initial object of should one take in a distressed neighbour is fine but what happens after is the real divergence with the refugee/migrant/economic opportunist(take your pick)situation.

          One factor that may constrain our host is the insanely PC atmosphere in many universities these days(from what I read). The mob has just brought down the head of the University of Missouri for not appeasing them enough or being white or something…so realistic but unPC views expressed here may have repercussions…I wouldn’t want our host to put himself in the crosshairs of junior thought police for our sakes.

          Another factor may be that it seems we are approaching narrative collapse in many areas and a lifetime of liberal identity and assumptions may experience stress. Best to fasten seatbelts as there may be turbulence ahead lol

          • WTP said, on November 15, 2015 at 11:18 am

            Missouri wasn’t the only Maoist passion play. I take it you are also aware of the recent happenings at Yale and rumblings at Amherst, the “solidarity” protests at various other schools around the US in regard to Mizzou as well.

            Mike’s example was limited in scope because he chose it to represent only that which he wanted to “prove”. He does this often, presenting an analogy and when presented with examples, even in the fair context of the original analogy, fails to respond or acknowledge those points.

            Don’t know if you saw my response to something you posted last week and I can’t recall exactly where it was myself, but part of my point was that PC and such relies on never, ever admitting fault or flaw in reasoning, but to simply either shout down or move on to other issues. This you can do in philosophy and politics and such non-real world domains. Those of us who live in the real world are more beholden to facing the flaws of our perceptions.

            • ronster12012 said, on November 15, 2015 at 12:10 pm

              WTP

              I unfortunately did miss that post of yours you refer to and have just chased it up….and was glad I did as you used a H L Menkin quote….always on the money “The fear that someone may be happy”…yes that says it all.

              I agree re PC…as an ideology it has many religious elements to it as well. Good and evil, original sin, atonement, a fanatical fervour etc. A few years ago(5 or so) I used to kill time arguing with global warming enthusiasts and they are the same(I think that there is a lot of overlap between the two groups anyhow)…and it struck me then how religious they were. Even the Climategate email scandal where the scientists at the heart of climate ‘science’ expressed their own doubts….but the useful idiots at the street level were undeterred…as useful idiots are supposed to be.

              This is what happens when there is a decline in organized religion or at least a central myth that everyone can at least pay lip service to…we end up with society unravelling into a myriad of fragments that are fanatical about their turf as it fulfils their religious impulse to be a part of something transcendent.

            • ronster12012 said, on November 16, 2015 at 11:49 am

              WTP

              Was thinking about this Missouri situation today and the forced resignation. There are things going on in other schools as you note.

              Silly question maybe…but did any faculty or admin individually or as part of a group stand up to the demands? Or do they just roll over?

              OK, I am not being an armchair critic because if they didn’t it could be called cowardice, but they still have families to look after and mortgages to pay and standing in front of a freight train for no apparent gain is not the smartest thing to do regardless of principles. So because no one will stand up to then we can expect this behaviour to increase.

            • WTP said, on November 16, 2015 at 12:53 pm

              Well there was the Mizzou Prof who made noise about standing up to bullies, but then before the story made most news outlets he had already capitulated. Though his resignation was not accepted, whatever that means. It was a typical professor job of a half-assed resignation, re

              “…If my leaders think that my leaving would help, I am all for it. I made a mistake, and I do not want to cause further harm.”

              so it seems he gave them an out on not accepting. These people have no backbone even in the context of having no backbone.

              https://www.insidehighered.com/quicktakes/2015/11/12/missouri-professor-quits-resignation-not-accepted

            • ronster12012 said, on November 17, 2015 at 12:02 pm

              WTP

              Once upon a time, in a society far, far away(actually seems to be in another dimension looking back at it now), people actually had opinions and didn’t actually give a shit whether people agreed or not, as we all had opinions then. If someone wanted to dispute an opinion then logic. reason and evidence were what was used to settle the matter.And if the matter couldn’t be settled then no problem, as it was just an opinion anyhow.
              How did we ever get on not treating differing opinions as cause for total war?

              Do we measure in minutes or hours the time between someone claiming to be offended and the accused rolling over and saying sorry/I was quote out of context/was drunk/stoned/insane/traumatized/i had a bad childhood and wet the bed or whatever?

              I loved that Donald Trump reply when a scumbag reporter tried to ambush him by saying that David Duke endorsed him and would he repudiate him? The Donster just said “Yes, I’ll repudiate his endorsement… if it will make you feel better” and a fuck you too. Shows that it can be still be done…if one possesses a little testicular fortitude.

  12. ajmacdonaldjr said, on November 16, 2015 at 10:18 am

    18 February 2015 – ISIS threatens to send 500,000 migrants to Europe as a ‘psychological weapon’ in chilling echo of Gaddafi’s prophecy that the Mediterranean ‘will become a sea of chaos’ … Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2958517/The-Mediterranean-sea-chaos-Gaddafi-s-chilling-prophecy-interview-ISIS-threatens-send-500-000-migrants-Europe-psychological-weapon-bombed.html#ixzz3rfFjc6yv

    Alert! Obama Welcomes Syrian Refugees To New Orleans https://youtu.be/WogJH_IJt2s

    • ronster12012 said, on November 16, 2015 at 11:41 am

      AJ

      Didn’t Gaddafi say that only without him in power in Libya there would be nothing to stop millions of africans crossing the Mediterranean?

      What exactly was his crime again?

    • nailheadtom said, on November 16, 2015 at 12:30 pm

      There’s nothing new about mass migrations, the Volkerwanderung that Toynbee describes in his “A Study of History”. For all of human history groups have moved from one place to another, no Europeans, for instance, lived in the western hemisphere before the end of the 15th century. Now their descendants make up a great majority of the population after doing away with the original inhabitants. The jihadis are a fringe element of the present migration, which will continue even if they are somehow eliminated. This is not to say that a successful invasion is inevitable. Certainly there are things that can be done to arrest it. But if those things would be acceptable to the general public of the 21st century is questionable. The migrants, however, are operating with a mindset and view from another era, that gives them advantages in their struggle. While the civilized west is repelled by media accounts of beheadings, they accept the use of devastating weapons operated by remote control with limited personal responsibility. The jihadis, on a more basic technological level, embrace the opportunity to demonstrate their personal warrior capabilities. The west can be victorious in this war, just as they were in their defeat of the neo-lithic American natives, but it won’t be pretty.

      • ronster12012 said, on November 17, 2015 at 12:05 pm

        Tom

        True, there is nothing new about mass migrations, but what we have now is national suicide aided and abetted by scheming POS elites that are allowing and managing it all.

  13. TJB said, on November 16, 2015 at 1:41 pm

    If people from the Middle East want to move to Europe isn’t this saying they want to be governed by Europeans?

    Perhaps it is time for imperialism to make a comeback.

  14. Ben said, on January 9, 2016 at 4:00 pm

    There are still a lot of IDIOTS (easily manipulated) out there believing that letting millions of muslim men from north Africa posing as “refugees” from Syria in Europe is not an organised invasion.

    The same people wonder why they are raped, assaulted, attacked, mugged on new year’s eve by the same kind of “refugees” in cities like Cologne, Hamburg, Helsinki, Stuttgart, Vienna and all over Europe.

    The same idiots wonder why there is less and less money for them left in public hospital and social welfare.

    The same idiots wonder why they can’t walk anymore in large parts of their own cities, regions and lands , colonised by those who have come here only to take their places.

    A lot of idiots out there. Thanks to these useful idiots, corrupted politicians can continue to lie and deceive and fuel the invasion of our countries by hordes of muslims.

    Until one day, we will be a minority in our own land.
    I guess there will be still enough idiots to find that fine and submit to their new rulers…

    • Anonymous said, on January 9, 2016 at 9:53 pm

      That kind of idiocy does not come naturally. These idiots were trained in this idiocy via media and “education”. Who, specifically, trained them?

      • ronster12012 said, on January 10, 2016 at 8:03 am

        That’s easy. The ethnocentric, racially supremacist tribe that has infested our western societies and has convinced young and impressionable whites that they are evil for caring about their own people and society.

        The tribe also controls the media, Hollywood, Fed Reserve and most western politicians. Jews have been expelled 106 times over the past two millenia….and it is always the host’s fault FFS lol.

        • Me said, on January 10, 2016 at 7:19 pm

          This is easy, the leftists pricks and other useful idiots who have understood nothing of what’s going on and are repeating what the msm media order them to repeat are condemning any different opinion than what they think to be theirs.

      • Me said, on January 10, 2016 at 7:22 pm

        How easy to manipulate idiots like Anonymous, unless of course Anonymous is pitifully trying to manipulate others.

        Still, more and more people know what is going on. less and less people follow assholes we see on TV, internet or social media everyday and less and less people believe our corrupted politicians and their useful idiots (loads of them on this website obviously).

        Those who betrayed will be punished accordingly. We will not forget one of you…

        • ronster12012 said, on January 10, 2016 at 10:40 pm

          Me

          “Those who betrayed will be punished accordingly. We will not forget one of you…”

          I hope that there are are an army of OCD sufferers obsessively making lists of traitors for the day of the rope.

    • ronster12012 said, on January 10, 2016 at 7:50 am

      Ben

      Well said. There is a race war coming….as extreme as that statement seems to be, it is becoming less fanciful every single day.

      Now a couple of Hungarian politicians(obviously less infected with political correctness than all western politicians) are saying the same thing.

      http://www.dailystormer.com/happening-hungarian-academic-talks-about-race-war-and-white-genocide-on-national-tv/

      As a further note, the above website is one of many that has emerged in the past few years on a similar theme.
      It is in the top 30k of all websites worldwide….so a trend has been emerging for the past few years as many young white(mostly males) start to realise the shit we are in and the treacherous elites that have put us where we are.

      As for Germany, they have been psychologically castrated since the end of WW2, Hitler, holohoax and all that.Hopefully they can man up and eject the invaders, though that means fighting the sand niggers AND their own government. From reports today they are retaking Cologne city centre, though the government is using water cannon on them.

      cheers

  15. TJB said, on January 10, 2016 at 11:14 am

    Suggested topic for Mike: “Kafkatrapping”:

    One very notable pathology is a form of argument that, reduced to essence, runs like this: “Your refusal to acknowledge that you are guilty of {sin,racism,sexism, homophobia,oppression…} confirms that you are guilty of {sin,racism,sexism, homophobia,oppression…}.” I’ve been presented with enough instances of this recently that I’ve decided that it needs a name. I call this general style of argument “kafkatrapping”, and the above the Model A kafkatrap. In this essay, I will show that the kafkatrap is a form of argument that is so fallacious and manipulative that those subjected to it are entitled to reject it based entirely on the form of the argument, without reference to whatever particular sin or thoughtcrime is being alleged. I will also attempt to show that kafkatrapping is so self-destructive to the causes that employ it that change activists should root it out of their own speech and thoughts.

    http://esr.ibiblio.org/?p=2122

    • ronster12012 said, on January 10, 2016 at 12:16 pm

      TJ

      Excellent find. We can disarm them one rhetorical trick at a time.

      As the left has had their on way for the past few decades, based partly on tricks such as these, they are going to be totally shell shocked when those tricks no longer work and they are left standing defenseless and naked in front of the people they have mocked and abused.

  16. TJB said, on January 10, 2016 at 11:19 am

    Mike, any comments on sexual assaults in Germany on New Year’s Eve?

    Do you agree with the mayor of Cologne that German women need to change their behavior in order to avoid getting assaulted?

    • ronster12012 said, on January 10, 2016 at 12:09 pm

      TJ

      The obvious implication being that if they don’t change their behaviour they themselves are responsible for getting raped. And the feminists are saying what about this exactly? My guess, based on nothing but a long (but admittedly intermittent) observation of leftoid mindsets, is exactly nothing.

      • Me said, on January 10, 2016 at 7:27 pm

        The mayor of Cologne should resign. She’s obviously already collaborating with the muslim invaders like her master Merkel.
        Merkel should apologize, recognize she was wrong, send back all the fake refugees from Germany to where they belong and resign as well.

        The Cologne mayor’s is what they refer as a dhimmi. She already submitted to the will of her new masters. Exactly what the people behind the invasion want to see.

        • ronster12012 said, on January 10, 2016 at 10:47 pm

          The moslems are more in touch with human nature than we generally are. Dhimmitude is psychological servitude. Women naturally are more prone to this than men though not always. There are some extremely staunch women out there who will not bend for anyone when they believe they are right. Two names come to mind, Sylvia Stoltz and Ursula Haverbeck, bot currently in jail in Germany for refusing to believe fairy tales.

    • WTP said, on January 11, 2016 at 9:53 am

      Same shit happened in Sweden last summer. It’s no big deal. Probably happens all the time. Nobody cares.

      http://nyheteridag.se/exposing-major-pc-cover-up-in-sweden-leading-daily-dagens-nyheter-refused-to-write-about-cologne-like-sex-crimes-in-central-stockholm/

      If a gang of muzzies grope women in a public square in Europe and only the police and news media are made aware of it, does anyone make a sound? Certainly no philosopher is interested in pondering what this all might mean. Such things are simply the domain of right wing nut jobs, not serious people.

      • ronster12012 said, on January 12, 2016 at 12:01 am

        WTP

        Yes, the problem too difficult for philosophers to deal with, though of course not too difficult for truck drivers, mechanics, builders….or really any non philosopher/intellectual.

        I think that the zeitgeist is changing, and everything old will become new again. The really smart thing for philosophers and intellectuals to do, if they really are that smart, is to get with the new program and convince everyone that had been their original position all along….and anyone disputing that was ‘misunderstanding’ them.

        Hypocritical? Yes of course, but better that than be seen as a collaborator of the traitors that got us into the position we are in now.

    • Michael LaBossiere said, on January 12, 2016 at 7:55 pm

      Sexual assaults should be punished. The obligation to not assault rests on the potential assaulter. Potential victims should be on guard; but they have no moral obligation to change their behavior to “avoid provoking assaults.”


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: