Outstanding piece. I worked in voter‑behavior demographics from 1988–2006 and ran straight into the same wall you describe when I presented a culture‑and‑trust analysis to Jeb Bush in 1997—‘well, that’s racist’ was the response. What my data showed, and what you capture so well here, is that post‑1965 immigration policy deliberately severed admission from cultural distance and civic compatibility, so the trust effects Putnam measured were baked into the system. Your reframing of his work around shared norms and civic fidelity, rather than crude race categories, is exactly how the numbers behave in real coalitions and real neighborhoods.
So most Muslims believe religious rules are more important than country secular law and reject homosexuality? A clear and present danger to the Greater American Empire and its Rainbow Jihad!
I haven't done the numbers but the vast majority of muslim countries have secular law that embodies key aspects of religious rules and public norms, so people coming from those countries have at least grown up seeing that as normal. Demonstrably in the case of so-called 'honor' killings, some migrants, especially when they establish segregated enclaves for community enforcement, bring these practices with them.
Seven Islamic countries provide explicit legal mitigation or reduced sentences when a murderer claims the victim was somehow wanton, and about ten more in practice do not prosecute. Eight countries have the death penalty for blasphemy, all Islamic, and twelve more have laws on the books that more-or-less allow death for blasphemy. Twelve places have the death penalty for gays, all Islamic, and there are 65 countries where homosexuality is illegal -- all in Asia and Africa.
So far. For now. I'd keep an eye on the UK and the EU for new developments.
As someone coming from a part of the world where Christians and Muslims used to coexist, I will confirm that the cultural distance between them is immense even if they share the same genetics and the same popular culture (food, music, dances, etc). In general, the most peaceful coexistence has been achieved when population exchanges were employed that resulted in religiously homogenous countries.
Take Turkey as an example. Greek speaking Muslims from mainland Greece and while Turkish speaking Christians were expelled to Greece and became Greek. And this done despite the fact that modern Turkey was founded as a fiercely secular nation. History proved Venizelos and Ataturk right. Despite conflicts on many issues, there has been no war between Turkey and Greece since the population exchange.
There are over 85 Shariah courts in the UK. This is how communal jihad is established. Jihad is a religious teaching that is foundational to Muslim principles. Jihad is antithetical to our constitution and is the pathway to theocratic rule with Iran being that historic example.
How does the British legal system tolerate a parallel juridical framework? What happens when they clash? I would appreciate any pointers to sources to read more about this phenomenon. I had no idea there were so many.
Tolerate? The intolerance of Islamists refusing to acknowledge British law is everywhere. Rape gangs? To define Sharia Courts as “counsels” is how they do it. Fatwa is a ruling from a Sharia court. Salman Rushdie an author had a fatwa levied against him and has had to live in hiding since. There is no tolerance towards western culture and no tolerance of free speech.
It is so terrible to see politicians tie themselves into knots to appease illegal aliens. It is even more terrible when they prioritize their needs over those of actual citizens. Let them go live in Muslim countries.
“They are refusing to do their jobs, and the people who pay the price are ordinary citizens in diverse neighborhoods who just want to be able to trust their neighbors.”
Not only that. It represents the early stages toward the inevitable decline and fall of the nation itself.
“they understand that civic culture is not infinitely elastic and that mass cultural importation carries real costs to social cohesion”
They don’t need Harvard studies to tell them. We are intrinsically no less capable of observing the same phenomena and drawing the same conclusions about obvious truths. We COULD draw the same conclusions about the limits on the elasticity of our own countries’ communities and societies, that is, if we were not constantly reminded of the guilt we are required to feel for the accident of being born white. If you were born white, it is bigotry to observe and bigotry to conclude that there are limits. White people must believe in magically elastic communities that not only never break, but are better for the stretching. Anyone who observes or concludes what Putnam did must, as he did, close their eyes and do their best to stuff that genie back in the bottle before their career and life is ruined by their abject failure at mandated pretense.
“Ordinary” people KNOW this. They have been conditioned to deny it, intimidated into ignoring it. This is why Western Europe is doomed. America is in jeopardy. This will end badly.
It has been stopped in the U.S., for the time being, with slow signs of reversal. Germany shows some signs of a potential reversal. Britain and France remain politically paralyzed short of an uprising of some sort. Both need new governments before anything has a chance of change. Spain may be lost once again. Canada has slowed but no signs of reversal. Australia continues to fail. It’s a mixed bag. The EU remains the epicenter of the problem.
It’s THE JEWS. It’s always the Jews
Outstanding piece. I worked in voter‑behavior demographics from 1988–2006 and ran straight into the same wall you describe when I presented a culture‑and‑trust analysis to Jeb Bush in 1997—‘well, that’s racist’ was the response. What my data showed, and what you capture so well here, is that post‑1965 immigration policy deliberately severed admission from cultural distance and civic compatibility, so the trust effects Putnam measured were baked into the system. Your reframing of his work around shared norms and civic fidelity, rather than crude race categories, is exactly how the numbers behave in real coalitions and real neighborhoods.
So most Muslims believe religious rules are more important than country secular law and reject homosexuality? A clear and present danger to the Greater American Empire and its Rainbow Jihad!
I haven't done the numbers but the vast majority of muslim countries have secular law that embodies key aspects of religious rules and public norms, so people coming from those countries have at least grown up seeing that as normal. Demonstrably in the case of so-called 'honor' killings, some migrants, especially when they establish segregated enclaves for community enforcement, bring these practices with them.
Seven Islamic countries provide explicit legal mitigation or reduced sentences when a murderer claims the victim was somehow wanton, and about ten more in practice do not prosecute. Eight countries have the death penalty for blasphemy, all Islamic, and twelve more have laws on the books that more-or-less allow death for blasphemy. Twelve places have the death penalty for gays, all Islamic, and there are 65 countries where homosexuality is illegal -- all in Asia and Africa.
So far. For now. I'd keep an eye on the UK and the EU for new developments.
As someone coming from a part of the world where Christians and Muslims used to coexist, I will confirm that the cultural distance between them is immense even if they share the same genetics and the same popular culture (food, music, dances, etc). In general, the most peaceful coexistence has been achieved when population exchanges were employed that resulted in religiously homogenous countries.
Take Turkey as an example. Greek speaking Muslims from mainland Greece and while Turkish speaking Christians were expelled to Greece and became Greek. And this done despite the fact that modern Turkey was founded as a fiercely secular nation. History proved Venizelos and Ataturk right. Despite conflicts on many issues, there has been no war between Turkey and Greece since the population exchange.
There are over 85 Shariah courts in the UK. This is how communal jihad is established. Jihad is a religious teaching that is foundational to Muslim principles. Jihad is antithetical to our constitution and is the pathway to theocratic rule with Iran being that historic example.
How does the British legal system tolerate a parallel juridical framework? What happens when they clash? I would appreciate any pointers to sources to read more about this phenomenon. I had no idea there were so many.
Tolerate? The intolerance of Islamists refusing to acknowledge British law is everywhere. Rape gangs? To define Sharia Courts as “counsels” is how they do it. Fatwa is a ruling from a Sharia court. Salman Rushdie an author had a fatwa levied against him and has had to live in hiding since. There is no tolerance towards western culture and no tolerance of free speech.
Thank you for your writing.
Muse-ificent, as always Sir Alexander.
It is so terrible to see politicians tie themselves into knots to appease illegal aliens. It is even more terrible when they prioritize their needs over those of actual citizens. Let them go live in Muslim countries.
“They are refusing to do their jobs, and the people who pay the price are ordinary citizens in diverse neighborhoods who just want to be able to trust their neighbors.”
Not only that. It represents the early stages toward the inevitable decline and fall of the nation itself.
“they understand that civic culture is not infinitely elastic and that mass cultural importation carries real costs to social cohesion”
They don’t need Harvard studies to tell them. We are intrinsically no less capable of observing the same phenomena and drawing the same conclusions about obvious truths. We COULD draw the same conclusions about the limits on the elasticity of our own countries’ communities and societies, that is, if we were not constantly reminded of the guilt we are required to feel for the accident of being born white. If you were born white, it is bigotry to observe and bigotry to conclude that there are limits. White people must believe in magically elastic communities that not only never break, but are better for the stretching. Anyone who observes or concludes what Putnam did must, as he did, close their eyes and do their best to stuff that genie back in the bottle before their career and life is ruined by their abject failure at mandated pretense.
It's appalling that so many whites are willing to bear this guilt and try to dump it on others. It is giving power to those least deserving.
Ask Japanese or Koreans about the value of ethnic diversity.
“Ordinary” people KNOW this. They have been conditioned to deny it, intimidated into ignoring it. This is why Western Europe is doomed. America is in jeopardy. This will end badly.
Only of it continues unabated.
So….do you foresee any abatement?
It has been stopped in the U.S., for the time being, with slow signs of reversal. Germany shows some signs of a potential reversal. Britain and France remain politically paralyzed short of an uprising of some sort. Both need new governments before anything has a chance of change. Spain may be lost once again. Canada has slowed but no signs of reversal. Australia continues to fail. It’s a mixed bag. The EU remains the epicenter of the problem.