Collecting my thoughts

When I started this blog back in September, I just started posting away in medias res, as it were, without explaining what the ol' blog was all about. There is the brief note connected to my profile, but it's not much of an explanation. To be honest, I hadn't really explained it to myself fully, either. I was in such a rush to start getting some of my thoughts on mass immigration in Ireland and the West out there that I didn't really stop to explain myself. Well, I'd like to take a few moments to collect my thoughts and present them here.

To start with, I am extremely concerned -- and I know I'm not alone in this (see Kevin Myers and the Immigration Control Platform for examples) -- at the levels of mass immigration into Ireland at the moment; the likelihood of the profound changes that mass immigration will bring to Ireland; and the fact that there seems to be little to no discussion about immigration issues in our society or in the Irish press.

Ireland has taken in something like 600,000 immigrants in the last five years -- we think. That's the equivalent of the UK taking in 9 million immigrants -- or the US, 45 million immigrants. One only needs to looks at the rest of Europe to see what sorts of potential changes such mass immigration will inevitably bring to our country.

I'm Irish and, like most people in the world, I happen to have a preference for my fellow people and culture. We're not a perfect group of people -- not by a long shot -- we have our failings like most peoples in the world. But, I like being Irish and I like the positive aspects of our "Irish-ness" and I don't want to see that disappear.

The citizens of Ireland need to think about the implications of mass immigration to our country and discuss them in order to plan for the future -- to leave our children and our grand-children with the best possible opportunities in which to thrive. That's the first, main goal of the blog, then -- to promote an honest and open discussion about immigration to Ireland.

*****

As fond as I am of Ireland and my fellow Irish, I am even more enamoured of and dedicated to Western Civilization as a whole. Yes -- Westerners are guilty of all sorts of crimes against humanity -- we can be as greedy and atrocious and horrible as any group on the planet. I won't make any excuses for any of that. But at the same time, Western Civilization has brought the world scientific reasoning and thought (see Fjordman's essays on the scientific revolution), modern medicine, ideas on human rights and democracy, and a general independence of mind and spirit for which I will never apologize and which I will promote and fight for until my final breath. ALL of the world's populations have benefited enormously from the inventions of Western Civilization and I, for one, do not want to see that civilization disappear.

But it may very well disappear if unregulated mass immigration -- some of the largest the world has ever seen -- of non-Western peoples into the West continues. The different populations of the world (yes, the races) are -- well -- different on average from each other. ("On average" meaning that not every individual in each race bears all of the average traits found in that race -- "on average" refers to the characteristics of the group as a whole.) Never mind all the politically correct nonsense one hears every day -- different human populations are different from each other on average in terms of such traits as intelligence, frequency of personality types, and such traits as aggression. This is just the nature of biology -- different sub-populations of animal species differ -- it would be strange if the same were not true of humans. If you don't believe science, then look around you with your own eyes -- read a little history or ethnography.

So, if we are not selective about the types of immigrants we allow into the West -- and Europe, anyway, certainly hasn't been particularly selective so far -- we'll probably get groups of immigrants that represent the averages of whatever population they come from. And, in many cases, that may simply not be a good thing. The Western world needs to be discussing the issue of mass immigration -- honestly and openly. That's the second, main goal of this blog -- to promote discussion about mass immigration to the West.

*****

Now is the point when many people out there would call me a racist -- as a fellow commenter on the Indo did just the other day. I am not racist -- well, not in the sense of the second definition in the Oxford English dictionary which is how most people use the word today. I do not believe in discrimination against other people because of their race -- I believe all people should be judged (in a job interview, for instance) based on their own merits. I definitely do not believe in being antagonistic toward other people because of their race. And I certainly don't care about mixed-race marriages or friendships or anything like that -- those are matters of private choice which are not anybody else's business, as far as I'm concerned.

What I do care about, though, is that by continuing to allow the unregulated mass immigration of groups of people having traits different to those of Westerners (on average) -- especially of groups that do not assimilate well -- we will further alter, to our detriment, the biological characteristics of the West's population that underpin our society and our values.

For instance, several writers (Sailer, Parker, Kurtz here and here) have written about how institutionalized practices of cousin marriage are detrimental to democracy and nation-building since inbred groups naturally tend to feel greater allegiance to their fellow extended family members rather than society on the whole [read these]. I know this sounds like a strange and obscure idea to many folks out there -- but how related we are (our genetic relatedness) to our family members and to our fellow members of society predicts how cooperative and free (or not) our societies are. Societies with institutionalized cousin marriage are typically the least democratic and free in the world. Conversely, Western societies -- which have very low levels of cousin marriage -- are some of the most democratic and free. See for yourself.

And so we come to Islam.

Muslims, on the whole, seem to many observers in Europe and the West to be some of the least compatible immigrant groups in the West and Islam seems to be incompatible with Western ideals. I contend that this is the case because of how inbred the populations in most Islamic countries are. Look again. Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, Iraq, Afghanistan, Iran, Turkey, Egypt, Algeria -- all have very high levels of cousin marriage -- cousin marriage occurs at rates of between 20-50%+ in these countries. (Notice, too, that Nigeria also has a very high level of cousin marriage.) Then, consider the average IQ of these nations (all hovering around 85 -- Turkey is the highest with an average IQ of 90). Or where these countries fall on Transparency International's corruption index -- not a good record. These are no coincidences.

From Sailer:

One of the basic laws of modern evolutionary science, quantified by the great Oxford biologist William D. Hamilton in 1964 under the name "kin selection," is that the more close the genetic relationship between two people, the more likely they are to feel loyalty and altruism toward each other. Natural selection has molded us not just to try to propagate our own genes, but to help our relatives, who possess copies of some of our specific genes, to propagate their own.

Nepotism is thus biologically inspired. Hamilton explained that the level of nepotistic feeling generally depends upon degree of genetic similarity. You share half your personally variable genes with your children and siblings, but one quarter with your nephews/nieces and grandchildren, so your nepotistic urges will tend to be somewhat less toward them. You share one eighth of your genes with your first cousins, and one thirty-second with your second cousin, so your feelings of family loyalty tend to fall off quickly.

But not as quickly if you and your relatives are inbred. Then, you'll be genealogically and related to your kin via multiple pathways. You will all be genetically more similar, so your normal family feelings will be multiplied. For example, your son-in-law might be also be the nephew you've cherished since his childhood, so you can lavish all the nepotistic altruism on him that in an outbred family would be split between your son-in-law and your nephew.

Unfortunately, nepotism is usually a zero sum game, so the flip side of being materially nicer toward your relatives would be that you'd have less resources left with which to be civil, or even just fair, toward non-kin. So, nepotistic corruption is rampant in countries such as Iraq, where Saddam has appointed members of his extended family from his hometown of Tikrit to many key positions in the national government. [link]

This is the third, main goal of this blog: to promote an honest and open discussion about immigration of peoples who practice cousin marriage -- in particular Muslims -- and the implications this has for the West.

*****

My own opinion is that Europe needs to stop taking in immigrant groups who practice cousin marriage and to make cousin marriage (and the related practice of arranged marriages) illegal -- especially for those immigrant groups who practice it. Judging from all that we know about institutionalized cousin marriage, there is no way that these groups are ever going to successfully integrate into Western society. In fact, the initial evidence shows that such groups are, in fact, not integrating well.

Believe me, this is not an easy proposition for me to make since normally I value the right of individuals to make up their own minds about such life choices as marriage (although one could argue that arranged marriages do not allow that). I suppose I have had to revise my stance to allow for individual freedoms to apply to Westerners in the West and not, necessarily, to non-Westerners. I can live with the double-standard if it means the preservation of Western society. (Of course, what non-Westerners choose to do in their own countries is up to them and none of my business.)

I previously offered a set of suggestions regarding what sorts of immigrants to allow into Ireland and the West. I had four ideas which I offer again:

Why not prioritize taking in groups from countries which rank high on Transparency International's International Corruption Perceptions Index -- in other words those that have low levels of corruption?

Why not prioritize taking in groups from countries with high IQs?

Why not prioritize taking in groups from countries with similar ideals?

Why not prioritize taking in groups from countries that do not practice cousin marriage?

*****

Another commenter on the Indo site the other day said about me (in a not very charming tone): "Do you have a problem with French or German people moving into Ireland? probably not." Actually, yes, like I said above -- I DO have a problem with all mass immigration to Ireland. I'd like Ireland to stay Irish, not become a région d'outre-mer of France or a state of Germany. However, if I had to pick between 100,000 (ethnically) French immigrants and, say, 100,000 Muslim Iraqis, then yes -- I have to say, for all the reasons outlined above, I'd prefer the French immigrants.

Regarding the two commenters I mentioned in this post -- the one above and the other one who said I was a racist -- these are the sorts of people who do not want a discussion about immigration issues, but simply resort to name-calling and other tactics just to win the argument. Well, I've read Schopenhauer's "The Art of Controversy" [see also here] and so am familiar with the techniques -- and I'm not interested.

We need an open and honest adult discussion on immigration based on the facts -- not on politically correct notions or childish behaviours -- before it's too late.