First, we need to figure out why our leaders, like Macron, are making silly statements about French culture, thinking it doesn't exist. He thinks the Muslim Brotherhood is a threat to the Republic but shakes hands with a Syrian Islamist.
Multiculturalism is a mistake.
The trans movement is a mistake.
The obsession with abortion is a mistake.
Culture matters, identity matters, tradition matters, history matters.
In the US, the primary issue of violence is not associated with immigrants but native black Americans.
We don’t have the assimilation problems caused by Muslims in Europe because Muslims still are a very small percentage of our population.
Luckily for us most of our immigrants are Hispanic who have successfully integrated into our society for centuries.
No the problem is black and especially young black men.
If you have watched The Sopranos you saw the Italian community begin to distance itself from the crime ridden Mafia. When does the apparent tolerance for crime within the black community along with the acceptance by black school administrators of the disruption of classrooms by out of control individuals begin to end? When will fathers who fail to care for and love their children and especially their boy children be openly censured by black leadership? The young Chris Rock joked openly about these issues but he clearly now censors himself.
On X, now without censorship thanks to Elon Musk, out of control violence has become standard fodder for ridicule with blacks typically being the most violent group depicted. Unfortunately, the stereotype of black violence is rooted in reality.
Young black men (15-34) are just 2% of the population yet commit half of the nation’s homicides. A rate an astounding 50 times that of the average American.
Where white people decide to live, shop, vacation and even if they are willing to use public transit (especially women) has been for decades largely based on avoiding large groups of black people because of their perceived and actual tendency to engage in violence. The term white flight in housing patterns has always been used as a disparaging reference when, in truth, it means white common sense.
The native Black population is definitely America's greatest threat. It's the problem that's going to stay with us long after the immigration problem has been resolved. The problem with immigration is that it compounds our problems. It's not the fuel, but the accelerant for the blaze. If leftists had an honest bone in them, the last thing they'd want for the immigrant is for them to move to a White supremacist country.
If you look at the polls, you'll notice that Blacks are quite in favor of more immigration, including illegal immigration. Yet not only are they negatively impacted by illegal immigration because migrants so often go live in the same neighborhoods as Blacks, Blacks also have the hardest time getting along with other ethnic and racial groups. I've always said that our society's critique of White people is projecting the pathologies and tendencies of Black people onto them.
Mind you, Europe also has a problem with its native racial minorities, just not to the extent the U.S. But that's where it's the reverse of America - European racial minorities are the accelerant, while migrants are the fuel.
A point that Rod Dreher often makes is that once the older members of the Black community die out, there's no moderating force remaining. I don't think these older Blacks did a particularly good job of it, but there's a point to be made that many of them grew up in a time when they had to "get with the program" to get anywhere in America. I watch old videos on YouTube and I'm often surprised at how different Blacks sounded when they spoke 40 to 50 years ago. Those generations are now dying off or reaching a point where they cannot serve as strong pillars of the community. They're being replaced by people who were basically allowed to do and say whatever they want their entire lives. I don't expect these people to mellow out.
This is very interesting. Perhaps Europeans are in a false sense of security re. immigration because there has traditionally been lower crime from black people here. Our black populations arrived after WW2 and they arrived voluntarily. Some committed crime, some didn't, but they generally lacked the hostility towards white people you may expect from the descendants of slaves living in the same place they were taken to. That said, over the last 10 years or so there has been much more crime and black boys and men are committing a high proportion of it.
For years, it was generally accepted that Blacks in Britain were far better assimilated than Blacks in the U.S. because they really were. I think the election of Barack Obama and the racial reckoning on the other side of the Atlantic actually woke up Black tribalism in Britain. It's amazing that they see Black culture in America as something to emulate. Says something about the people.
That began to change about 10 years ago. French women are about the only WEIRD women in the world who have become significantly more right-wing over that time.
Also, one can not mention the 2027 election and leave off the fact that the most popular presidential candidate will not be allowed to run in what is probably France's "Flight-93 election." What Germany won't do to AfD, France has done to LePen.
I imagine you've read How Civil Wars Start by Barbara Walter. She talks about spillover; civil wars don't stay confined to 1 country. We saw this with the color revolutions. So if France goes, expect Germany and and UK and maybe Spain to go as well.
I suspect your first poll understates America's resolve on illegal immigration. "Let them all stay" is the default position all Enlightened, liberal, residual-Christian people. "Kick them out" is just mean; only a cold-hearted bastard would want to do that. That our Overton Window even includes this is remarkable. That it's favored 45/55 -- instead of 80/20 the other way -- is a mandate. The second Emerson College poll backs this up -- despite constant news coverage of deported mothers with babies and brown men in chains, 46% of voters think these actions are making their communities safer.
Re: knife crime in England, I just crunched the numbers on this. There were ~4000 hospital admissions for stabbings last year in England. and ~10,000 homicides and 3500 injuries with guns in America. But England is 1/6th the size of America, so (13,500/350M = 4 per 100K US vs 4000/60M = 6.5 per 100K UK) England knife crime is 50% more serious than American gun crime. (Note, this likely understates it, since American stats include self-defense shootings.) It took me less than 30 minutes to find the data, but no mainstream reporter will ever do so since it violates the narrative.
"Violent people will pull out their own hair and try strangling their victims with it, because their entire existence comes down to causing death and pain to others."
This is precisely the thing the modern liberal mind can not accept. Christians (even residual cultural Christians) have no problem with it. But liberals put Freud, Pavlov, Darwin, Mill and Nietzsche into a pot and the resulting socially toxic brew rendered them unable to acknowledge the existence of true evil.
I totally forgot Le Pen cannot run in 2027. Wow. That's going to be a very interesting election. Worthwhile to note that the French Army officer in that interview I often cite predicted that the quasi-war which draws the battle lines will occur during an election season.
I wanted to read "How Civil Wars Start," but Barbara Walter is such a leftist partisan, it compromises her scholarship. She lays the roots of the next civil war entirely on the Right and White people. There's a reason why you don't hear much from her lately, because the last four years have completely invalidated her narrative. Thank God for Dr. David Betz, who is far less of an ideologue and can be relied upon to be objective. For example, Betz points out that homogeneity doesn't make civil war less likely and that diverse societies aren't uniquely at risk of civil war.
I often make the point that nobody really cares about immigration, at least in America, as much as they let on. Even most immigration restrictionists aren't preoccupied by how many foreigners are in the country. Open-borders advocates don't lose sleep over deportations, either. Literally nobody really cares that illegals are getting kicked out of the country. This makes the government's unwillingness to tackle the issue that much more baffling. It actually costs them nothing, politically, anyway, to get rid of people who aren't supposed to be here. It's why I, along with so many others, believe this is all very much deliberate.
Crime rates in Britain have always been quite high, at least by First World, European standards. It almost seems like the proportion of the population which is Black or foreign has something to do with it. I don't stand for Britons lecturing Americans on gun crime, when they've long had a similar problem. As they like to say, they can "piss off."
We British are not "surrender monkeys" as you say we are. The Reform party whose main objective is tackling mass immigration is surging, and 69% of people now view Keir Starmer unfavourably.
Leanne Lucas as you rightly point out is suffering massive PTSD after being stabbed multiple times. Sky News is a poor source though, because like the Guardian or BBC will only give you the woke viewpoint, as will its comments section.
The Telegraph or GB News are anti-woke, as are the majority of people in the comments. They take a sensible approach.
Sky News broadcast live outside the court where Rudakabana's was sentenced for triple murder with its mixed-race reporter saying "diversity is our greatest strength" to jeers and heckles from the public.
It wasn't my intention to offend. I'm sure there are many Britons who share your views. However, data does show that young Britons, in particular, are more liberal than even American young people. Also, maybe it's because of the kinds of Britons I meet, but every one of them are invariably left-leaning.
I'm not sure what demographic of Britons you meet but if you mean you meet them in America I would say having lived abroad that people who travel/live abroad tend to be left-leaning. Not always but if you're from a rich country and you're going to go abroad you probably respect foreign cultures more. But yes, UK politics has always been shifted slightly left of that of the US. European leaders these days expect us to just tolerate everything but there is a HUGE backlash.
Extraordinary that anyone would think Starmer was a good leader, I can only think these people must read The Guardian and stay within affluent areas. Fortunately, Reform looks set to continue winning seats:
While we are left as a country regarding healthcare and guns for example, the Reform surge means we want serious changes to lax immigration, especially illegal immigration.
I don't know if it's the same in the US, but traditionally many Labour voters have not wanted immigration as it means more competition for low-skilled jobs. These days Labour is the luxury belief party who want foreign workers serving them coffees and driving Ubers. Matt Goodwin is good to follow on this if you don't already.
It's sad because traditionally it the UK we have had freedom of speech except for actually inciting violence, i.e, really, "let's kill all the ____s". Now the judiciary is interpreting this as something much wider. But we are rebelling! The Lucy Connelly case is getting a huge backlash.
immigration without assimilation is a European failure. American immigrants have always been encouraged to assimilate. The way forward for us is to kick out criminals without mercy, but welcome anyone willing to learn English and adhere to our values. If we don’t do this, we will get no-go zones and a parallel society just like Europe. It’s a big country though. We have a long way until we get what France, Britain, Sweden and Germany have now.
But the elites of Europe aren’t ready to admit defeat. Instead of facing the situation, they will blame their troubles on an external enemy. If they get the war they want, it will sweep them off the board, and perhaps that’s the best case scenario. Otherwise the Islamists will take more and more power. Britain has already transitioned into a bifurcated state. They have allowed an incompatible legal system to operate within their borders, and Islamists have taken political control of municipalities. I don’t think anyone is ready for what happens if Europe’s natives are forced to fight.
Assimilation works in America because there's really nothing to assimilate into. Nowadays, there exist communities where a person doesn't even need to speak English because all business can be conducted in their native language. What real assimilation looks like is German Americans and French Americans. They've become virtually indistinguishable from Anglo Americans. Most German and French Americans don't feel any real kinship to their ancestral homeland. Assimilation, unfortunately, involves cutting off all ancestral ties.
Quality of immigrant matters, too. It's easier to assimilate someone who moves here with positive intentions and doesn't do so illegally. It's not a coincidence that illegal immigrants and their offspring aren't assimilated and identify more strongly with the land they left behind. But even many legal immigrants don't assimilate because, again, they're not expected to and American culture has become so faceless, there's nothing to assimilate into. The lack of social tensions comparable to that of Europe isn't a sign that things are fine in America. It's more a sign that Americans simply aren't putting up any kind of resistance, content to just move about the country when things change too much for their liking.
I would argue that this depends strongly upon *where* these immigrants settle in America.
If they move to a metropolitan area in a blue state, that's one thing.
But they do have economic incentives to move to red states (just as American citizens do), and those areas retain stronger cultures with more incentive to assimilate.
Agreed. I also think the prospect of civil unrest and especially civil war is much lower in America than Europe. The problem isn’t immigration per se. The problem is Muslim immigrants with barbaric values who cannot be assimilated into Western nations. The vast majority of immigrants to the United States are Hispanics and Asians. The are much easier to assimilate and are not a danger when it comes to terrorist attacks.
The risk is definitely lower than that of Britain and France. Also, when the civil war starts in America, it won't be obvious. Periodic acts of major violence will serve as reminders that there's a war going on, but it'll be a far cry from what was depicted in the movie "Civil War."
The thing about assimilation is that it must be an expectation. Asians and Hispanics are easier to assimilate, but only when expected to. They're not expected to any longer, American culture has become so universalized, so even Asians and Hispanics are increasingly tapping into the only strong identity they have access to: their ethnic identity.
Yes. The fact that our White population is heavily-armed and our primary immigrant populations are much more assimilable than North African Muslims are huge advantages for the US.
Moreover, significant portions of those Hispanic/Asian populations would side with the legacy White population in the event of any widespread racial civil conflict, as our late elections have shown.
The recent rhetorical U turn by Starmer and the UK Labour Party shows that we can cross the point where anti immigration becomes at least rhetoricallly bipartisan once it approaches that critical point. In the UK the critical point for the elites was the emergence of a new anti immigration party that would wipe out both main parties if national elections were held today. The main parties are reacting - posturing to this existential threat to their political power. A similar thing just happened in Canada. Some of the Scandinavian countries are also moving in this direction in terms of actual action, not just rhetoric. I suspect that Western countries will track quite closely as this Overton window shifts.
Actions speak louder than words. Will Starmer even call out the British Border Force to stop the boats? And more importantly, will he stand up to nonstop BBC and Guardian video of boats with brown women with babies being forced back to Calais? Maybe, but I'm not optimistic.
I strongly believe that a massive coordinated Islamic terror attack along the lines of Oct 7 2023/Paris 2015/Mumbai 2008/Beslan 2004 will hit Western nations in the near future. The civil wars will happen afterwards when citizens realize who among them enabled these attacks to occur.
I strongly agree with your re-assessment of the countries most likely to experience CW.
Imo, Britain is already lost. They will eventually be overrun and simply surrender, and it will be deserved.
The French, however, appear to be willing to fight, and the attitudes of their women gives reason for hope.
It's ironic that it will more likely be Britain and not France who suffer the disgraceful national fate described by Michel Houellebecq in "Submission"
Godspeed to the Patriots of Europe from all nations.
I'm a strong believer that women cannot be protected if they don't want to be protected. Right now, women throughout the West don't want to be protected because they associate protection with the patriarchy. French women, to their credit, are totally different. Unfortunately, it means that a heavy dose of unpleasant reality is necessary for women throughout the rest of the West to realize the patriarchy is the only thing standing between them and the barbarians.
This is a really good point, Max. Women derive a disproportionate share of the benefits from civilization, but if they want to be protected and put in the lifeboats first, they have to be willing to play their part. Since 1968, Liberal Western women have chosen to compete (instead of cooperate) with men.
You can't spend 50 years trying to destroy masculinity and then complain there are no strong men to defend you when SHTF.
The thing is, the most dangerous men never rid themselves of their "toxic" masculinity. Black and immigrant men haven't lost any of it. It's White and domestic Western men who have. Criminals of all races haven't. This campaign of de-emasculating men to make the world safer for women has worked on everyone except the truly dangerous men. Way to go, feminists.
At this point, the willingness of men to protect women is entirely a biological function. But the last 50 years proves this can be programmed out of men. It's quite frightening, actually.
This video of Eric Weinstein is a must-watch. He refers to transgenderism and how it's actually part of a deliberate attempt at basically lowering society's defenses. A society without strong men simply will surrender everything, including its children.
I see signs that American women are changing their tune with regard to "patriarchy".
Firstly, many of them seem incredibly burned out by the corporate hell which they were so eager to enter in their youth.
Additionally (and this may just be an algorithmic quirk based on my own preferred media consumption), Im seeing quite a few videos lately about women realizing *exactly how much stronger men are* than them, contra the Marvel media propaganda of a tiny woman beating up 10 huge men. Their reaction to this realization has been ambivalent: they dislike the advantage at which this places them, but they also seem to understand the necessity of having *good* men to protect them from *bad* men.
This is all very provisional and hypothetical. As you note, American women have not experienced anything remotely resembling the day-to-day threat of harassment and violence from hostile immigrants that French women have, and our immigrants are (for the most part) far more culturally compatible with American society than the North Africans of Europe.
I've long watched female labor force participation rate since it's the share of women who are willing to make a major life choice (dropping out of the labor force) so they can cooperate with a man to raise a family instead of compete against him economically. We'll see if Gen Alpha girls (I have 3) make different choices.
It's definitely not happening under the existing social order. Women will become family-oriented once again when the incentive structure changes to where going to work is either disadvantageous or women going to work simply isn't an option. Typically, this sort of change only comes through a cataclysmic event. I keep remembering what Selco Begovic said: when the Bosnian War started, gender roles became traditional again. Nobody discussed it, nobody consciously chose it. It just happened.
My dream would be that America would become like Israel: high birth rates, high rates of family formation, while still being a classically liberal society. However, we'd need greater religiosity for that. While I do see a Fifth Awakening coming around mid-century, I just don't know if it's going to become imbued within our social fabric the way Judaism is in Israel's. We may just end up repeating the same cycle we've seen throughout our history. Honestly, I think America will more come to resemble Russian society post-communism than Israel.
Oh and by the way, Israel is surrounded by enemies and constantly fights wars. That has the effect making both men and women appreciate civilization like no other. America needs some mortal enemies.
Ever read the book Lucifer's Hammer? It's about an asteroid hitting the Earth. Post-apocalyptic. It was written in the 70's or early 80's and one of the things it tackles explicitly is how rapidly it eradicates feminist ideas. Like your example of Bosnia, no one talks about it, but several female characters just realize they have to accept that "it's a man's world now".
Feminism can only exist in a civilizational context. Yet feminism involves breaking down the pillars of civilization. Basically, "Open that door which is keeping me confined to this house." I didn't think an ideology more confused and contradictory than Marxism could exist, but it does - feminism.
Another strong belief of mine is that everyone, women included, have more nuanced beliefs than their social media posts might suggest. However, beliefs are only useful if people are willing to act on them. If someone says, "Of course we shouldn't have people just come over the border without permission" but then votes for policies and politicians that allow for just that, none of it means anything.
I don't doubt that women's opinions can change, but again, if they had to vote right now, what would they choose? They'd probably choose what they've chosen all along. People change very slowly.
Living in the murder capital of America, in the largest hospital in the middle of the ghetto, on any night gunshot wounds in the ER barely exceed and some nights are exceeded by the good old Louisville Slugger baseball bat.
It enjoys some advantages over blades because of standoff ability but a bat is hard to conceal.
Helpful hint - if you’re going to carry a bat in your car, do your lawyer a favor and also carry a fielder’s glove.
I’m always mystified by the uncanny ability of the authorities to deny what is as plain as the nose on their face, then I ask myself the famous Bongino question: “Is it bad enough yet?”
Truth is, the sooner action is taken, the higher the possibility of course correction, but we all know that. Thanks again for a great article.
I would recommend a cane. It has all the self-defense benefits of a bat, but won't be looked at twice. It's even a medical device legally, so ADA says no one can question you. And if they do: "oh, I don't need it much, but the first couple of steps after I stand up are pretty tough on my bad knees." Anyone over the age of 40 can pull that off.
I carry one and regularly attend martial arts classes for it. With even a small amount of training, the metal point on the front crook of a Darby cane... brutal. (Actually quite easily lethal, so you have to be careful.)
That's interesting. Again, the fixation on "gun violence" is ridiculous. It's basically suggesting violence is not worth being concerned about unless committed using a specific tool.
W
First, we need to figure out why our leaders, like Macron, are making silly statements about French culture, thinking it doesn't exist. He thinks the Muslim Brotherhood is a threat to the Republic but shakes hands with a Syrian Islamist.
Multiculturalism is a mistake.
The trans movement is a mistake.
The obsession with abortion is a mistake.
Culture matters, identity matters, tradition matters, history matters.
Will a societal clash happen, definitely.
In the US, the primary issue of violence is not associated with immigrants but native black Americans.
We don’t have the assimilation problems caused by Muslims in Europe because Muslims still are a very small percentage of our population.
Luckily for us most of our immigrants are Hispanic who have successfully integrated into our society for centuries.
No the problem is black and especially young black men.
If you have watched The Sopranos you saw the Italian community begin to distance itself from the crime ridden Mafia. When does the apparent tolerance for crime within the black community along with the acceptance by black school administrators of the disruption of classrooms by out of control individuals begin to end? When will fathers who fail to care for and love their children and especially their boy children be openly censured by black leadership? The young Chris Rock joked openly about these issues but he clearly now censors himself.
On X, now without censorship thanks to Elon Musk, out of control violence has become standard fodder for ridicule with blacks typically being the most violent group depicted. Unfortunately, the stereotype of black violence is rooted in reality.
Young black men (15-34) are just 2% of the population yet commit half of the nation’s homicides. A rate an astounding 50 times that of the average American.
Where white people decide to live, shop, vacation and even if they are willing to use public transit (especially women) has been for decades largely based on avoiding large groups of black people because of their perceived and actual tendency to engage in violence. The term white flight in housing patterns has always been used as a disparaging reference when, in truth, it means white common sense.
The native Black population is definitely America's greatest threat. It's the problem that's going to stay with us long after the immigration problem has been resolved. The problem with immigration is that it compounds our problems. It's not the fuel, but the accelerant for the blaze. If leftists had an honest bone in them, the last thing they'd want for the immigrant is for them to move to a White supremacist country.
If you look at the polls, you'll notice that Blacks are quite in favor of more immigration, including illegal immigration. Yet not only are they negatively impacted by illegal immigration because migrants so often go live in the same neighborhoods as Blacks, Blacks also have the hardest time getting along with other ethnic and racial groups. I've always said that our society's critique of White people is projecting the pathologies and tendencies of Black people onto them.
Mind you, Europe also has a problem with its native racial minorities, just not to the extent the U.S. But that's where it's the reverse of America - European racial minorities are the accelerant, while migrants are the fuel.
A point that Rod Dreher often makes is that once the older members of the Black community die out, there's no moderating force remaining. I don't think these older Blacks did a particularly good job of it, but there's a point to be made that many of them grew up in a time when they had to "get with the program" to get anywhere in America. I watch old videos on YouTube and I'm often surprised at how different Blacks sounded when they spoke 40 to 50 years ago. Those generations are now dying off or reaching a point where they cannot serve as strong pillars of the community. They're being replaced by people who were basically allowed to do and say whatever they want their entire lives. I don't expect these people to mellow out.
This is very interesting. Perhaps Europeans are in a false sense of security re. immigration because there has traditionally been lower crime from black people here. Our black populations arrived after WW2 and they arrived voluntarily. Some committed crime, some didn't, but they generally lacked the hostility towards white people you may expect from the descendants of slaves living in the same place they were taken to. That said, over the last 10 years or so there has been much more crime and black boys and men are committing a high proportion of it.
For years, it was generally accepted that Blacks in Britain were far better assimilated than Blacks in the U.S. because they really were. I think the election of Barack Obama and the racial reckoning on the other side of the Atlantic actually woke up Black tribalism in Britain. It's amazing that they see Black culture in America as something to emulate. Says something about the people.
France has had a distinct political gender divide for many years.
https://www.politico.eu/article/france-eu-elections-2024-women-vote-far-right-policy-emmanuel-macron-july-7/
https://www.rfi.fr/en/france/20240616-how-france-s-far-right-national-rally-party-finally-hooked-the-women-s-vote
That began to change about 10 years ago. French women are about the only WEIRD women in the world who have become significantly more right-wing over that time.
Also, one can not mention the 2027 election and leave off the fact that the most popular presidential candidate will not be allowed to run in what is probably France's "Flight-93 election." What Germany won't do to AfD, France has done to LePen.
I imagine you've read How Civil Wars Start by Barbara Walter. She talks about spillover; civil wars don't stay confined to 1 country. We saw this with the color revolutions. So if France goes, expect Germany and and UK and maybe Spain to go as well.
I suspect your first poll understates America's resolve on illegal immigration. "Let them all stay" is the default position all Enlightened, liberal, residual-Christian people. "Kick them out" is just mean; only a cold-hearted bastard would want to do that. That our Overton Window even includes this is remarkable. That it's favored 45/55 -- instead of 80/20 the other way -- is a mandate. The second Emerson College poll backs this up -- despite constant news coverage of deported mothers with babies and brown men in chains, 46% of voters think these actions are making their communities safer.
Re: knife crime in England, I just crunched the numbers on this. There were ~4000 hospital admissions for stabbings last year in England. and ~10,000 homicides and 3500 injuries with guns in America. But England is 1/6th the size of America, so (13,500/350M = 4 per 100K US vs 4000/60M = 6.5 per 100K UK) England knife crime is 50% more serious than American gun crime. (Note, this likely understates it, since American stats include self-defense shootings.) It took me less than 30 minutes to find the data, but no mainstream reporter will ever do so since it violates the narrative.
"Violent people will pull out their own hair and try strangling their victims with it, because their entire existence comes down to causing death and pain to others."
This is precisely the thing the modern liberal mind can not accept. Christians (even residual cultural Christians) have no problem with it. But liberals put Freud, Pavlov, Darwin, Mill and Nietzsche into a pot and the resulting socially toxic brew rendered them unable to acknowledge the existence of true evil.
I totally forgot Le Pen cannot run in 2027. Wow. That's going to be a very interesting election. Worthwhile to note that the French Army officer in that interview I often cite predicted that the quasi-war which draws the battle lines will occur during an election season.
I wanted to read "How Civil Wars Start," but Barbara Walter is such a leftist partisan, it compromises her scholarship. She lays the roots of the next civil war entirely on the Right and White people. There's a reason why you don't hear much from her lately, because the last four years have completely invalidated her narrative. Thank God for Dr. David Betz, who is far less of an ideologue and can be relied upon to be objective. For example, Betz points out that homogeneity doesn't make civil war less likely and that diverse societies aren't uniquely at risk of civil war.
I often make the point that nobody really cares about immigration, at least in America, as much as they let on. Even most immigration restrictionists aren't preoccupied by how many foreigners are in the country. Open-borders advocates don't lose sleep over deportations, either. Literally nobody really cares that illegals are getting kicked out of the country. This makes the government's unwillingness to tackle the issue that much more baffling. It actually costs them nothing, politically, anyway, to get rid of people who aren't supposed to be here. It's why I, along with so many others, believe this is all very much deliberate.
Crime rates in Britain have always been quite high, at least by First World, European standards. It almost seems like the proportion of the population which is Black or foreign has something to do with it. I don't stand for Britons lecturing Americans on gun crime, when they've long had a similar problem. As they like to say, they can "piss off."
We British are not "surrender monkeys" as you say we are. The Reform party whose main objective is tackling mass immigration is surging, and 69% of people now view Keir Starmer unfavourably.
Leanne Lucas as you rightly point out is suffering massive PTSD after being stabbed multiple times. Sky News is a poor source though, because like the Guardian or BBC will only give you the woke viewpoint, as will its comments section.
The Telegraph or GB News are anti-woke, as are the majority of people in the comments. They take a sensible approach.
Sky News broadcast live outside the court where Rudakabana's was sentenced for triple murder with its mixed-race reporter saying "diversity is our greatest strength" to jeers and heckles from the public.
It wasn't my intention to offend. I'm sure there are many Britons who share your views. However, data does show that young Britons, in particular, are more liberal than even American young people. Also, maybe it's because of the kinds of Britons I meet, but every one of them are invariably left-leaning.
I'm not sure what demographic of Britons you meet but if you mean you meet them in America I would say having lived abroad that people who travel/live abroad tend to be left-leaning. Not always but if you're from a rich country and you're going to go abroad you probably respect foreign cultures more. But yes, UK politics has always been shifted slightly left of that of the US. European leaders these days expect us to just tolerate everything but there is a HUGE backlash.
This poll validates what I said about about Britain's political orientation as a country. Still very much devoted to leftism.
https://x.com/YouGov/status/1927299701008744781
Extraordinary that anyone would think Starmer was a good leader, I can only think these people must read The Guardian and stay within affluent areas. Fortunately, Reform looks set to continue winning seats:
https://yougov.co.uk/topics/politics/trackers/voting-intention
While we are left as a country regarding healthcare and guns for example, the Reform surge means we want serious changes to lax immigration, especially illegal immigration.
I don't know if it's the same in the US, but traditionally many Labour voters have not wanted immigration as it means more competition for low-skilled jobs. These days Labour is the luxury belief party who want foreign workers serving them coffees and driving Ubers. Matt Goodwin is good to follow on this if you don't already.
I'm sure the lack of free speech culture in Europe obscures quite a bit as well. We can't know what people think if they're not allowed to say so.
It's sad because traditionally it the UK we have had freedom of speech except for actually inciting violence, i.e, really, "let's kill all the ____s". Now the judiciary is interpreting this as something much wider. But we are rebelling! The Lucy Connelly case is getting a huge backlash.
A sobering account of the civilisational precipice that open borders has led us to.
immigration without assimilation is a European failure. American immigrants have always been encouraged to assimilate. The way forward for us is to kick out criminals without mercy, but welcome anyone willing to learn English and adhere to our values. If we don’t do this, we will get no-go zones and a parallel society just like Europe. It’s a big country though. We have a long way until we get what France, Britain, Sweden and Germany have now.
But the elites of Europe aren’t ready to admit defeat. Instead of facing the situation, they will blame their troubles on an external enemy. If they get the war they want, it will sweep them off the board, and perhaps that’s the best case scenario. Otherwise the Islamists will take more and more power. Britain has already transitioned into a bifurcated state. They have allowed an incompatible legal system to operate within their borders, and Islamists have taken political control of municipalities. I don’t think anyone is ready for what happens if Europe’s natives are forced to fight.
Assimilation works in America because there's really nothing to assimilate into. Nowadays, there exist communities where a person doesn't even need to speak English because all business can be conducted in their native language. What real assimilation looks like is German Americans and French Americans. They've become virtually indistinguishable from Anglo Americans. Most German and French Americans don't feel any real kinship to their ancestral homeland. Assimilation, unfortunately, involves cutting off all ancestral ties.
Quality of immigrant matters, too. It's easier to assimilate someone who moves here with positive intentions and doesn't do so illegally. It's not a coincidence that illegal immigrants and their offspring aren't assimilated and identify more strongly with the land they left behind. But even many legal immigrants don't assimilate because, again, they're not expected to and American culture has become so faceless, there's nothing to assimilate into. The lack of social tensions comparable to that of Europe isn't a sign that things are fine in America. It's more a sign that Americans simply aren't putting up any kind of resistance, content to just move about the country when things change too much for their liking.
I would argue that this depends strongly upon *where* these immigrants settle in America.
If they move to a metropolitan area in a blue state, that's one thing.
But they do have economic incentives to move to red states (just as American citizens do), and those areas retain stronger cultures with more incentive to assimilate.
Agreed. I also think the prospect of civil unrest and especially civil war is much lower in America than Europe. The problem isn’t immigration per se. The problem is Muslim immigrants with barbaric values who cannot be assimilated into Western nations. The vast majority of immigrants to the United States are Hispanics and Asians. The are much easier to assimilate and are not a danger when it comes to terrorist attacks.
The risk is definitely lower than that of Britain and France. Also, when the civil war starts in America, it won't be obvious. Periodic acts of major violence will serve as reminders that there's a war going on, but it'll be a far cry from what was depicted in the movie "Civil War."
The thing about assimilation is that it must be an expectation. Asians and Hispanics are easier to assimilate, but only when expected to. They're not expected to any longer, American culture has become so universalized, so even Asians and Hispanics are increasingly tapping into the only strong identity they have access to: their ethnic identity.
Yes. The fact that our White population is heavily-armed and our primary immigrant populations are much more assimilable than North African Muslims are huge advantages for the US.
Moreover, significant portions of those Hispanic/Asian populations would side with the legacy White population in the event of any widespread racial civil conflict, as our late elections have shown.
The recent rhetorical U turn by Starmer and the UK Labour Party shows that we can cross the point where anti immigration becomes at least rhetoricallly bipartisan once it approaches that critical point. In the UK the critical point for the elites was the emergence of a new anti immigration party that would wipe out both main parties if national elections were held today. The main parties are reacting - posturing to this existential threat to their political power. A similar thing just happened in Canada. Some of the Scandinavian countries are also moving in this direction in terms of actual action, not just rhetoric. I suspect that Western countries will track quite closely as this Overton window shifts.
Actions speak louder than words. Will Starmer even call out the British Border Force to stop the boats? And more importantly, will he stand up to nonstop BBC and Guardian video of boats with brown women with babies being forced back to Calais? Maybe, but I'm not optimistic.
I am not holding my breath either.
Fantastic essay. Thank you.
Please don't overlook Ireland. It is just as bad as the UK. But the rural population is also armed.
I strongly believe that a massive coordinated Islamic terror attack along the lines of Oct 7 2023/Paris 2015/Mumbai 2008/Beslan 2004 will hit Western nations in the near future. The civil wars will happen afterwards when citizens realize who among them enabled these attacks to occur.
I strongly agree with your re-assessment of the countries most likely to experience CW.
Imo, Britain is already lost. They will eventually be overrun and simply surrender, and it will be deserved.
The French, however, appear to be willing to fight, and the attitudes of their women gives reason for hope.
It's ironic that it will more likely be Britain and not France who suffer the disgraceful national fate described by Michel Houellebecq in "Submission"
Godspeed to the Patriots of Europe from all nations.
I'm a strong believer that women cannot be protected if they don't want to be protected. Right now, women throughout the West don't want to be protected because they associate protection with the patriarchy. French women, to their credit, are totally different. Unfortunately, it means that a heavy dose of unpleasant reality is necessary for women throughout the rest of the West to realize the patriarchy is the only thing standing between them and the barbarians.
This is a really good point, Max. Women derive a disproportionate share of the benefits from civilization, but if they want to be protected and put in the lifeboats first, they have to be willing to play their part. Since 1968, Liberal Western women have chosen to compete (instead of cooperate) with men.
You can't spend 50 years trying to destroy masculinity and then complain there are no strong men to defend you when SHTF.
The thing is, the most dangerous men never rid themselves of their "toxic" masculinity. Black and immigrant men haven't lost any of it. It's White and domestic Western men who have. Criminals of all races haven't. This campaign of de-emasculating men to make the world safer for women has worked on everyone except the truly dangerous men. Way to go, feminists.
At this point, the willingness of men to protect women is entirely a biological function. But the last 50 years proves this can be programmed out of men. It's quite frightening, actually.
This video of Eric Weinstein is a must-watch. He refers to transgenderism and how it's actually part of a deliberate attempt at basically lowering society's defenses. A society without strong men simply will surrender everything, including its children.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mbdJtrXYBZs
I see signs that American women are changing their tune with regard to "patriarchy".
Firstly, many of them seem incredibly burned out by the corporate hell which they were so eager to enter in their youth.
Additionally (and this may just be an algorithmic quirk based on my own preferred media consumption), Im seeing quite a few videos lately about women realizing *exactly how much stronger men are* than them, contra the Marvel media propaganda of a tiny woman beating up 10 huge men. Their reaction to this realization has been ambivalent: they dislike the advantage at which this places them, but they also seem to understand the necessity of having *good* men to protect them from *bad* men.
This is all very provisional and hypothetical. As you note, American women have not experienced anything remotely resembling the day-to-day threat of harassment and violence from hostile immigrants that French women have, and our immigrants are (for the most part) far more culturally compatible with American society than the North Africans of Europe.
It is however noteworthy.
If this is true, it's not showing up in the data on women's choices yet.
https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/LNS11300002
I've long watched female labor force participation rate since it's the share of women who are willing to make a major life choice (dropping out of the labor force) so they can cooperate with a man to raise a family instead of compete against him economically. We'll see if Gen Alpha girls (I have 3) make different choices.
It's definitely not happening under the existing social order. Women will become family-oriented once again when the incentive structure changes to where going to work is either disadvantageous or women going to work simply isn't an option. Typically, this sort of change only comes through a cataclysmic event. I keep remembering what Selco Begovic said: when the Bosnian War started, gender roles became traditional again. Nobody discussed it, nobody consciously chose it. It just happened.
My dream would be that America would become like Israel: high birth rates, high rates of family formation, while still being a classically liberal society. However, we'd need greater religiosity for that. While I do see a Fifth Awakening coming around mid-century, I just don't know if it's going to become imbued within our social fabric the way Judaism is in Israel's. We may just end up repeating the same cycle we've seen throughout our history. Honestly, I think America will more come to resemble Russian society post-communism than Israel.
Oh and by the way, Israel is surrounded by enemies and constantly fights wars. That has the effect making both men and women appreciate civilization like no other. America needs some mortal enemies.
Ever read the book Lucifer's Hammer? It's about an asteroid hitting the Earth. Post-apocalyptic. It was written in the 70's or early 80's and one of the things it tackles explicitly is how rapidly it eradicates feminist ideas. Like your example of Bosnia, no one talks about it, but several female characters just realize they have to accept that "it's a man's world now".
Feminism can only exist in a civilizational context. Yet feminism involves breaking down the pillars of civilization. Basically, "Open that door which is keeping me confined to this house." I didn't think an ideology more confused and contradictory than Marxism could exist, but it does - feminism.
Another strong belief of mine is that everyone, women included, have more nuanced beliefs than their social media posts might suggest. However, beliefs are only useful if people are willing to act on them. If someone says, "Of course we shouldn't have people just come over the border without permission" but then votes for policies and politicians that allow for just that, none of it means anything.
I don't doubt that women's opinions can change, but again, if they had to vote right now, what would they choose? They'd probably choose what they've chosen all along. People change very slowly.
Living in the murder capital of America, in the largest hospital in the middle of the ghetto, on any night gunshot wounds in the ER barely exceed and some nights are exceeded by the good old Louisville Slugger baseball bat.
It enjoys some advantages over blades because of standoff ability but a bat is hard to conceal.
Helpful hint - if you’re going to carry a bat in your car, do your lawyer a favor and also carry a fielder’s glove.
I’m always mystified by the uncanny ability of the authorities to deny what is as plain as the nose on their face, then I ask myself the famous Bongino question: “Is it bad enough yet?”
Truth is, the sooner action is taken, the higher the possibility of course correction, but we all know that. Thanks again for a great article.
I would recommend a cane. It has all the self-defense benefits of a bat, but won't be looked at twice. It's even a medical device legally, so ADA says no one can question you. And if they do: "oh, I don't need it much, but the first couple of steps after I stand up are pretty tough on my bad knees." Anyone over the age of 40 can pull that off.
I carry one and regularly attend martial arts classes for it. With even a small amount of training, the metal point on the front crook of a Darby cane... brutal. (Actually quite easily lethal, so you have to be careful.)
I also carry a cane but my preference runs to blackthorn with a hefty knob.
That's interesting. Again, the fixation on "gun violence" is ridiculous. It's basically suggesting violence is not worth being concerned about unless committed using a specific tool.
Exactly. Sewing scissors can be deadly.
"Scissor violence is out of control. We need to use blunted scissors."