Monday, September 05, 2011

Wearing Out Their Welcome

Remember how I have been this crazy bigot for suggesting that unlimited immigration of people hostile to the US and to American society might not be such a great idea? It turns out that my logic is now that of the famously tolerant Dutch government as well.

The Netherlands, where six per cent of the population is now Muslim, is scrapping multiculturalism:
The Dutch government says it will abandon the long-standing model of multiculturalism that
has encouraged Muslim immigrants to create a parallel society within the Netherlands.

A new integration bill, which Dutch Interior Minister Piet Hein Donner presented to parliament on June 16, reads:
"The government shares the social dissatisfaction over the multicultural society model and
plans to shift priority to the values of the Dutch people.
In the new integration system, the values of the Dutch society play a central role.
With this change, the government steps away from the model of a multicultural

The letter continues: "A more obligatory integration is justified because the government also
demands that from its own citizens. It is necessary because otherwise the society gradually
grows apart and eventually no one feels at home any more in the Netherlands..."
The new integration policy will place more demands on immigrants. For example, immigrants will be required to learn the Dutch language, and the government will take a tougher approach to immigrants who ignore Dutch values or disobey Dutch law.
The government will also stop offering special subsidies for Muslim immigrants because,
according to Donner, "it is not the government's job to integrate immigrants."
The government will introduce new legislation that outlaws forced marriages and will also
impose tougher measures against Muslim immigrants who lower their chances of employment by the way they dress.
More specifically, the government will impose a ban on face-covering Islamic burqas as of January 1, 2013.
There seems to be some sort of rough rule here, that whenever Muslims live in close proximity with non-Muslims, the non-Muslims wind up not liking them very much.



  1. Christy4:18 AM

    Taking your logic a step further: Jews lived in close proximity to Christians for centuries in Europe, yet 6 million were killed by Christians. Does this mean that the Christians were justified in murdering the Jews? After all 'when jews and non jews wind up living together the jews aren't liked very much'.

    You really are a moron Jack, thats why you lead such a lonely bitter life full of hatred.

  2. No, actually it means "Christians" are often antisemitic bastards and even outright Nazis. For most of European history Jews were defenseless minority communities. Jewish communal aims were much the same as Jewish national aims are now - let us live in peace.

    Muslims are numerous and aggressive. The policies of their neighbors has generally been to welcome them with ideologies of multiculturalism and affirmative action. Muslim communal aims are to gain political power and to impose shari'a law on the non-Muslims.

  3. Christy10:53 AM

    So prejudice is ok so long as you can manufacture a way to justify it?

    So, for example, the Christians were wrong to hate the Jews but correct to hate the Muslims? Thats quite convenient. Whats that phrase again? Cognitive dissonance?

  4. No prejudice is never OK because it is a logical fallacy. 'Pre- judice' means making judgments before one has any facts to base them on. With the Jews prejudices were based on racist fantasies, things that never happened.

    With Muslims, they are convicted out of their own mouths by what they say, and overwhelmingly by what they do. That is not prejudice but post-judice.

  5. Christy12:38 PM

    You say 'Muslims' as if they are an organised group of people, like PETA or someone like that. In reality you are referring to a very large chunk of the world's population and assigning politics, ethical beliefs and supposed 'prejudices' en masse without any consideration of proportion (The tendancy of some to hold one opinion very passionately but in broader terms tend to be calm and rational overall) Read Pamuk, please.

    But anyway.

    You're still a horrible bigot who has no sense of irony, historical or otherwise. Its an American condition, I forgive you for it.

  6. Actually the reason one can speak of 'Muslims' as a group is that they say they are. They speak of the 'Ulema' - the body of believers - as an integral community. They divide the world into 'Dar al Islam' and 'Dar al Harb'. 'Dar al Islam' means the lands of those who have submitted to Islam. 'Dar al Harb' means the lands of war - the lands of non-Muslims - i.e. those whom the believers are obliged to wage jihad against. The 57 Muslim-controlled countries of Dar al Islam all belong to the Organization of Islamic Cooperation. It is not enough that together with their Third World stooges they control the actual UN, the OIC is a UN specifically by and for Muslims.

    But these are mere facts and are useless against Christy's ignorance and bigotry. As to my sense of irony, I am smarter and funnier than Christy will ever be, and I always have been.

  7. Christy8:23 AM

    I hardly think that all of the Muslim States you mention are anything other than a geopolitical entity. For a start the vast majority of those leaders are dictators and are as such unrepresentative of majority opinion. Furthermore, you're a silly bigot who has a nasty tendancy for confirmation bias. Christians also believe in a community of believers, of Christendom yada yada, we're just blessed by the fact that we are all de facto agnostics now and that civilised people have allowed Religion go the way of the Dodo.

    You aren't that smart Kessler, but I suppose you are funny in an unintentional kind of way. Larry David you ain't.

  8. That is just denial, Christy. You didn't actually say anything. However the first three words of your comment are exactly correct.

  9. By the way, Christy, do you think it is a rather odd coincidence that as you correctly observe, every single one of the 57 Muslim-controlled countries is an authoritarian state and almost all of the majority Christian countries are democracies. All of the one Jewish majority country is a democracy.

    Even in Ireland they must teach basic arithmetic. Christy, if a Muslim country were equally likely to be a democracy or an authoritarian state, what are the chances that ALL 57 Muslim countries would be authoritarian? Hint: It is 0.5 to the 57th power.

    Since for sure Christy is too lazy to do the arithmetic that demonstrates his fundamental premises to be wrong, he could enter into an Excel spreadsheet the formula =0.5^57

    Either it is an astonishingly unlikely coincidence, OR there is a causal connection between a country being majority Muslim and it being authoritarian.

    But that is soooo politically incorrect that Christy will have to go with the =0.5^57 theory.

    Another word for the =05.^57 theory is 'denial', which we have already seen that the Leftists like Christy and the Muslims base their entire world-view on.