We may dismiss or consider the IQ argument, but average differences reported between Sierra Leone at 91, Zimbabwe at 82, South Africa at 77 and Somalia at 68, may be an important part of the overall picture. We cannot not know, however, that Frank Ellis, a lecturer at Leeds University, was forced into early retirement in 2006 for supporting research on race and IQ which reinforced views of this kind. Indeed, Elis’s views were called ‘abhorrent’ by his university. The Race Relations Act can be called upon in such circumstances to argue that students and job applicants implicated in this kind of research may experience disadvantage by being portrayed as of unequal intelligence. But we fail to distinguish between fact, tact, moral appeal and dogmatic egalitarianism.
The ever-provocative Donald Trump asked at a cross-party meeting in the Oval Office, ‘Why are we having all these people from shithole countries come here?’ In an incident some now refer to as shitholegate, he was referring primarily to Haitians and people from El Salvador and parts of Africa, and contrasted them with citizens of Norway and parts of Asia (Dawsey, 2018). Of course, he was immediately condemned as racist by many, including the UN High Commissioner. Now, Trump has tended to say, however vulgarly, what many are thinking, especially if we substitute the term ‘shithole’ with ‘inferior’. Compare this more diplomatic statement from a UK Minister for Immigration — ‘Britain is an open and welcoming country when it comes to attracting the brightest and best people from around the world’ (Nokes, 2018) — and you see there is an implied hierarchy. There may well be some ‘racism’ in Trump’s words, but also what Braun (1990) has called a ‘cheap-to-observe proxy’ or what academics refer to as a heuristic — and what SJWs call racial profiling or stereotyping. Given ample evidence that some countries chronically perform far worse than others, display high corruption and disease levels and poor economic managerial ability, and on average have lower skills and intelligence, Trump’s question is perfectly sensible. Why would you import people who on average will contribute little to your own country? On people from Haiti and El Salvador, it is possible to answer that due to their susceptibility to earthquakes, volcanic activity and other misfortunes, as well as a history of slavery, unfortunately they will always produce refugees who must be accommodated in other countries. By contrast with Norway, Haiti has over double its population and can on no account be called affluent. You can of course invoke the usual human rights rhetoric and faux-outrage. But the flip side of this remains the stubborn likelihood that most immigrants from certain countries do not bring assets but deficits, that this will not improve for many generations if at all, and in the meantime you will see an increase in multicultural conflicts and demands.
There is no agreement among historians as to large-scale patterns and causes and there is clearly much disagreement about evolutionary and cultural divergences. One view is that civilisations rise and fall randomly or cyclically; another that there is an overarching ultimate goal; and another that we have no criteria by which to compare historical epochs, geographical regions and peoples. Our current scenario suggests to some of us that our early African diaspora led to very different ethnic and cultural groups with markedly different characteristics. Working backwards, we may infer that white Westerners have evolved particular cognitive characteristics. By contrast, most African-origin and African people appear to have retained sensorimotor skills that Westerners have to a substantial extent forfeited. According to some research, Africans have on average stronger bones, a better sense of taste and smell, stronger immune responses, and more genetic diversity than Europeans (Callaway, 2009; Hochberg, 2007; Jakobsson et al., 2008). We do not have to read superiority and inferiority into this but a pattern of evolutionary trade-offs from which two broadly distinct peoples benefit and suffer. What is called white supremacy is better understood as cognitive supremacy, involving planning, deferred gratification and organisation resulting in a technologically rich society. Its downside is among other things over-regulation, preoccupation and alienation. By the same token, black supremacy may be understood as soulful, sensorimotor-rich existence. The downside here is among other things an attachment to easy living, emotionalism, lack of planning, and susceptibility to disasters. Of course, such a characterisation will be judged to be horribly racist by SJWs. But it can also be interpreted as an equally win-win or lose-lose situation, and just as racist towards whites as blacks.
A rough guide to the historical rise and fall of some selected nations might begin with the Middle East and its agricultural, trading and religious characteristics. The Abrahamic religions switched from polytheism to monotheism, arguably a more sophisticated theology, from which systems of altruistic morality gradually emerged, alongside the shadow of chronic inter-religious, inter-tribal conflicts into the present. A lightning tour through ancient Greece would see the birth of philosophy, analytical reasoning and democracy through to today’s egregious economic decline. Continuing through Rome, we see the Roman Empire expanding on the basis of advanced engineering, orderly society, slavery, and ruthless military organisation, with over-reach, decadence, falling fertility, and invasion eventually killing it off. The Vikings used their marine skills to invade many countries in the north and to rule parts of Britain and Ireland a thousand years ago but today Denmark, for example, is a tiny population nation with very limited influence. Several European nations developed advanced seafaring and military technology from the end of the 15th century, enabling them to explore distant parts of the world, and to loot them and enslave some inhabitants, yet today Spain and Portugal, for example, have very limited international influence. Following its part in the Holy Roman Empire and German Empire, Germany developed a much envied engineering capability, for example, but also the dark side of ambitious invasion and genocide, and today, crippled by guilt, acts very tentatively on the world stage (except in EU guise). Britain became the world’s leading industrial nation from about 1760, and also commanded the largest empire. But now it is a shrinking and declining nation that some regard as terminally under siege. The USA was initially fuelled by European immigration and entrepreneurialism, thrives on its technology and commerce, on the work ethic of its core people, but may not retain its world-leading position for much longer. A pattern is clear, that empires always arise, always entail bloody conflicts, and always fall back to small, weakened countries.
But we still, for now, recognise and speak of the advanced character of Western nations, and of higher living standards. Millions of third-world citizens want to move to the West, or in other ways emulate its capitalist successes (Morris, 2011). Meanwhile, it is unfortunately a habit of many Africans and African-heritage people — and even more so their SJW advocates — to blame the West and/or to remain resentful and dependent. The counter-narrative to that of blaming the West is one of corrupt African leaders and governments, incompetency, lack of will, tribal conflicts, long-term lack of problem-solving skills, a brain drain of their best, susceptibility to enervating diseases, and huge overpopulation (Brock & Blake, 2015; Calderisi, 2007; Meredith, 2013). Africa has rich natural resources. Some African nations are progressing better than others, but some like resource-rich South Africa, not long ago a beacon of hope under Nelson Mandela, risk a severe backward slide. South Africa is Africa’s wealthiest country, it is a multi-racial and multi-lingual nation of some 56 million, and its demographic make-up is almost the obverse of the UK, at 9.6% whites, and blacks at 79%. Serious crime rates are extremely high, poverty is rife, and diseases like HIV/AIDS are at high rates.
The contemporary geography of Islam is complicated but its origins are of course in the Arabian centre of Mecca, where Muhammad was born and lived. This was a commercial centre surrounded by desert and mountains, where paganism predominated before Islam brought monotheism. At that time, Judaism impinged on Islam more than Christianity did. Muhmmad differed from Jesus in being both a merchant and warrior, and having several wives. In many ways, the Quran duplicates Abrahamic and Christian moral ideals (a
spire to be nice) and is not highly distinctive. Like most religions, Islam had a mission to spread its message and make converts, but Islam is hundreds of years younger than Christianity. It is also far more aggressive and has been in conflicts from its beginning, against Christians in Muhammad’s time, during the Crusades between 1095 to 1297, in the Ottoman Caliphate of 1362 to the early 1900s, and in the Barbary slave trade of 1500–1800 (Davis, 2004). As Ali (2015) puts it, one of the greatest problems for Islam is that, unlike Christianity, it has retained its original authoritarianism and experienced no Protestant Reformation. Fidelity, indeed submission to the Prophet and the Quran remain at the centre of Islam. In spite of claims that Islam has spawned many scientific and technological discoveries linked with aspects of mathematics, chemistry, medicine, cartography and pottery, the failure of Islamic civilisation to match outstanding Jewish, Christian and secular achievements in science, technology, industry and culture is notable. It has been pointed out, for example, that while Muslims vastly outnumber Jews by 1.8 billion to 15 million, a hugely disproportionate number of Nobel Prizes have been awarded to Jews but very few to Muslims.
Islam cannot be said to be in decline, nor is the world population of Muslims decreasing. Far from it. As is all too obvious, Islam is spreading, it is always in the news, and unfortunately for the wrong reasons. A worldwide Muslim diaspora is in operation, associated with regional instability, high birth rates, patriarchal traditions, and what many regard as a medieval fixation on the behaviour prescribed in the Quran and hadith, and a dress code borrowed from the days of Muhammad. According to Ali (2015), Islam also has a ‘fatal focus on the afterlife’. Most alarmingly and controversially, one faction of Islam is intent on deadly terrorism against Western interests and nations. This is part of its caliphate ambitions, or mission of world domination. It is in this sense that Islam is often spoken of as having a political theology. Insofar as secularism is associated with scepticism, rationality and science, and with social liberalism, Islam is fundamentally at odds with the West. There is an undeniable contrast between typical Western lifestyles and traditional Islam. On the theme of equality or otherwise, while many Muslims regard their religion as morally and spiritually superior to secularism, Christianity, Judaism and other major religions, Islam must unfortunately be seen as inferior. Not for nothing has Murray (2017) descried Islam as ‘the slowest kid in the class’ (and see Dutton, 2014). This may not apply to progressive Muslims with only residual attachments to their faith, many of whom are successful in business, the professions, and academia, but it is a fair description of traditional Muslims who appear to be stuck in a mindset resembling regressive, illiberal Old Testament belief and behaviour.
None of us can see the future. Goodhart (2014) tries to predict a Britain in 2035 or so that has come to terms with its immigration problems and has a black Prime Minister. Contrast this with Christopher Priest’s 1972 novel Fugue for a Darkening Island, which portrays a future Britain in a civil war caused by massive African immigration (by ‘Afrims’) following a disaster in Africa. Priest’s novel The Adjacent is set in the future Islamic Republic of Great Britain (IRGB), just as Michel Houellebecq’s Submission is set in a newly elected French Islamic state. Jean Raspail’s The Camp of the Saints, published in 1972, warned long ago of the kind of mass immigration we are now seeing. In September 2017 another Islamist bomb attack has occurred on the London Underground, fortunately with no fatalities; among those arrested was Ahmed Hassan, an 18-year-old male refugee from Iraq who had been fostered to an elderly white British couple.
We do not know when the next Islamist atrocity will be, and how many will die. Nor can we know when to expect another race riot. We can hope for a fortuitous blending of immigrant cultures in time but we do not know if or when that will ever happen. But we can expect an indeterminately lengthy attritional war of unhappiness about immigration levels versus bitter accusations of racism and Islamophobia. We cannot expect the sense of ‘we are better than you’ — from any camp — to disappear any time soon. No-one knows whether on present trends future global society will more resemble a degraded mass favela or a paradise of multiculturalism. I think reason is a better guide to living than an old book about a revelation from a God who obviously doesn’t exist in my atheist world. I think some calculations about optimal population and optimal tolerance of immigration are better than a laissez-faire immigration policy. Although I am open to challenge, I don’t think religious or SJW views are superior or equal to mine — but they are welcome to their views.
Below I look at might and human rights, which roughly correspond with right-wing and left-wing views respectively, or with natural and free-market versus social-engineering views. SJWs will always do all they can to create a so-called level playing field. This may be in the sincere belief that equality is essential for all human dignity and welfare, or it may sometimes stem from envy and hatred. But it will always be an uphill struggle, often achieved only by propaganda or violence or only maintained by such means, and always susceptible to reversal in harsh times (Scheidel, 2017). But inequality is also embedded in each of us as individuals and in groups. We freely speak of human capital but we are perhaps more reluctant to embrace the (misunderstood) concept of erotic capital, whereby individuals recognise and play to their array of strengths in matters of competitive mating, livelihood, social status and well-being (Hakim, 2011). George Soros knows he is clever, influential and able to make vast amounts of money, for example. Usain Bolt knows he is strong, athletic, attractive and rich. Gina Miller knows that she is attractive, talented, assertive and able to make money. These people like everyone else use their advantages to enrich themselves and influence others. Attractive features that enhance lives include good looks, intelligence, agreeableness, confidence, extraversion, optimism, height, and many other qualities that are independent of how hard you work or what you think you deserve or need. Capitalists use whatever similar qualities they possess, plus their connections, entrepreneurialism and risk-taking personalities.
Most of us do not possess too many of these advantages but capitalise on whatever modest strengths we do have. Some people have little going for them, being handicapped by geographical bad luck, poor genes, cultural limits and environmental vicissitudes. Some, in spite of assets, suffer from personality deficits, accidents or psychiatric disorders that prevent them from ever realising their potential. The ‘lottery of birth’ means that the vast majority of us are either poor or have basic self-sustenance incomes and modest advantages in terms of talent, attractiveness, strength, and so on. The poorest need help, which is where social justice advocates and welfare programmes come in. Unfortunately, it looks as if many from certain ethnic groups are much more likely to succeed at athletics, investing, making popular music, attracting rich mates, creating intellectual property, or to be helped by family solidarity and resources, than others. No matter what you do, the poor will always be with us, and no amount of social engineering will create a lasting level playing field. We do not and cannot all have equal opportunities.
There is, however, one path to success, or at least towards material equality, that does not rely on the strengths noted above. I am thinking here of deviance, to use the broadest term. The so-called ‘sick role’ has been studied as a means to gain favour and support, and I believe those in the reparations community instinctively understand it. If you find yourself at the bottom of the pecking order, with little or no erotic capital, you may resort to crime, prostitution or begging. Or you may join a group extortion racket that collects items for its grievance bank to be used as leverage for moral blackmail. It isn’t attractive, but it can be very effective, for those with few assets to twist the knife of guilt. Hollywood celebrities are prime targets here, who instinctively recognise their good fortune (mainly their good looks, modest acting ability and vastly inflated pay), feel bad about it and as highly visible SJWs loudly endorse leftist causes.
On 16 February 2017 a Day Without Immigra
nts protest was carried out in the USA to demonstrate American dependency on immigrant labour. Aristophanes’s 411 BCE comedic play Lysistrata, depicting Greek women’s sex strike against war, had a similar power. Trades unions too have this rationale and power. The truly ‘wretched of the earth’ have little power as individuals but they do have political friends, and as collective streams of refugees they do apply moral capital against comfortable Western nations. But protests do not last. Transatlantic slavery was cheap labour but could not last. The large influx of cheap labour into Britain from eastern Europe since 1997 cannot last. Simultaneously, the growing gap between rich and poor cannot last (Scheidel, 2017). But nor did the Marxist dream last long. Paradoxically, however, new forms of erotic capital always emerge, new technologies and fashions appear, new sources of cheap labour arise, as do new currents of moral pressure and socioeconomic adjustments. Our long peace in Europe may or may not last. But the relentless ingenuity of the human spirit steers us through our ups and downs, through tragedies and successes.
16
Might and Rights
One common feature of the claims of many immigrants concerns alleged serious abuses by sections of the West that warrant demands for ethnic identity recognition, apologies, reparations and other forms of protection and redress. This is a complex matter which would require detailed legal analysis, ethical scrutiny and superhuman objectivity to resolve, and yet waves of claims are often made in outbursts of moral indignation. I use the above title for this section deliberately to juxtapose power and rights. We easily forget however that rights are frequently opposed; for example the rights to bear arms, or own property and defend it, or to marry your cousin or people of the same sex, are not universally agreed upon. It is important to look at some of the relevant cases which comprise grievances against Germany for the Holocaust, and the USA and UK and other Western nations for slavery and colonialism. These all have long roots and are at different stages of receiving attention but I will follow the sequence above, that is, the Holocaust, colonialism and slavery, and Western military interventions in Islamic lands.
Excessive Immigration Page 23
