, , , , , ,

The usual — and, often, the only — argument of open-borders and pro-amnesty elites is that their opponents are racists, and there endeth the lesson. This is universal, from John Oliver to the Southern Poverty Law Center to HuffPost writers. This assumption, and the resulting smugness and assuredness of their own moral superiority, guides everything said elites write and say about any immigration situation involving the First World, whether ours or the far worse one in Europe. (The legendarily nativist Japanese, who are generally to the right of Pat Buchanan when it comes to immigration, are off the hook because they are not white.)

But when (or should I say, if) you get past calling your opponents racist, you will need to have some kind of logical argument for allowing uninterrupted millions of Muslims to transform Europe. And after some hemming and hawing about Angela Merkel, the Economist finally gets to the kernel of the elites’ worldview:

“The world would be a better place if more of its people lived in safe, prosperous countries with the rule of law.”

That means, the best way to cure the poverty of Somalians, say, is to import Somalians into a “safe, prosperous” country with rule of law, such as Germany. It follows from this argument that the geographic entity known as “Somalia” magically makes people poor, and the borders of that piece of the globe we call “Germany” magically makes people well-off. In addition, rule of law seems to rise up out of certain patches of ground like some sort of natural resource — so naturally, we want to ship all the world’s population to these geysers of law.

Not mentioned is the idea that the people of Germany — that is to say, Germans — are what make their nation prosperous with the rule of law. Such a concept would naturally send that anonymous Economist writer to the fainting couch, weakly muttering “racist… racist… racist…” while someone runs for the smelling salts.

But it shouldn’t. Germany isn’t superior because its people are, for the moment, white, despite what the alt.Right would have you believe. After all, it wasn’t too long ago that those very same Germans assumed a rather hostile view to the ideals that made the West prosperous: reason, rationality, the scientific method, and above all, the Enlightenment, choosing instead the dark savagery of tribalism and superstition. This intentional return to the Hobbesian barbarity of our primitive forebears had a heavy hand in Germany’s eventual 1945 defeat for a variety of reasons — ineffective atomic bomb research being one clear example. But, the shock of that crushing debacle turned Germans rapidly and permanently back to the norms of Enlightened civilization. THAT, along with the German engineering tradition which somehow survived the Nazi period unharmed, is why Germany (and the very much non-white Japan, and for the same reasons) are such a nicer places than Somalia in 2015.

Somalians, like Syrians, Iraqis, Pakistanis, and all the others flooding Europe these days, do not adhere to these Western values. And, crucially — they have zero desire to do so. They wish instead to cling to the brutal, clannish, tyrannical, vendetta-fueled systems that dominate the Islamic world, in defiance of reason and the rule of law that the Economist pretends to value. And this trend is increasing, rather than decreasing, among Muslims worldwide. This is the reason why Europe’s immigration problem is toxic to the point of being fatal, while America’s is not. Most Hispanics and Asians, after all, want nothing more than to assimilate into enlightened Western culture, like the Irish and Italians that came before them.

But back to Europe: the insanity of the belief that Europe’s “safe, prosperous countries with the rule of law” can survive with a massive population of people ideologically committed to the opposite, is breathtaking in its suicidality. Enlightened civilization is a delicate thing, easily destroyed when a sizable percentage of the people wish it destroyed, as (again with the Godwinning myself, I know) the Germans demonstrated between 1933 and 1945.

I’m not saying that if the Economist got its way and all European countries became majority Islamic that a Holocaust would immediately occur. But I would say that such a continent would have all the prosperity, wealth, safety and rule of law of the Middle East and Africa. The only way out would be if the immigrants assimilated — which probably will not happen, if current Muslim populations in Europe are any indication.

So the way to improve the lives of Muslim people is not to move them to Europe, in the hopes that through some mysterious invisible force, this will make them abandon violent tribalism and accept enlightened secular humanism. It’s to export our values to their nations, because these values are no more incompatible with Islam as they are with Christianity. This seems impossible, but it isn’t always, as Ataturk one proved and as the United Arab Emirates prove today. Our way is superior. Not theirs.