So many questions…

What will turn out to be the exact backgrounds and personal stories of the attackers?

And how much will that matter? (Syrian refugee backgrounds are probably the worst case scenario, illegal “invaders” the best case scenario)

How much will this strengthen the French National Front?

What will the response be of the French government?  The American government?  (Don’t forget the NATO treaty obligation.  And will this mean Obama has to back off in the South China Sea?)

How much will it weaken Merkel, or possibly split the alliance with CSU, or strengthen AfD?

How much does it weaken the position of Schengen?

Will concealed carry become a more popular idea in the United States?

So few answers…

Comments

For the National Front, this will be big. If they were already in power, this would be their Reichstag Fire. But they're not in power. This may promote them from a minority party to one that can win an election.

I have nothing against you being right. But people tend to forget that nothing really happened after Madrid 2004 and London 2005, especially regarding the political landscape in Europe. Nothing really happened after Charlie Hebdo, too. So I don't really see why this pattern should change now. For example the editorial of some famous European newspapers today said: "We need more mass immigration from Syria to fight Islamic terrorism. There's no other way."

The politicians and the mass media in continental Europe live in their very own world. They are in a stadium in which they are immune to reason and facts. They won't change anything. They are not really interested in a few hundred slaughtered citizens who aren't part of their social class at all. For them it's just collateral damage. Unpleasant but not important.

Let me preface this with my condolences to all of the victims and all of the loved ones on the victims.

A +1 to the idea that it will not matter. The reason being that even the most violent terrorist attack can not kill that many citizens. The cost simply isn't 'that high' in terms of the big picture.

@Alain
"even the most violent terrorist attack can not kill that many citizens"

Let's speak again when they set off a dirty bomb. The Mullahs are leading the way.

"Let’s speak again when they set off a dirty bomb."

A "dirty bomb" doesn't really kill a large number of people. A nuclear fission bomb definitely would.

MB,

For a long time it was generally believed that a truly dangerous dirty bomb could not be built... Alas, that turns out not to be true. Such a thing is possible on a large scale. Fortunately, it has never happened so far.

Public "discomfort" with the large scale refugee influx from Muslim areas will exponentially increase public anger over this incident, even if the attackers were locals. The effect will not be limited to France - that roaring sound you hear is Donald Trump's poll numbers climbing into orbit.

Diversity + proximity = war.

@ Skeptic: I once saw a paper that predicted diverse nations sharing a border would cause war (think Yugoslavia, or nearly any part of Africa where there are numerous warring tribes). Against that, if everybody is heterogeneous, no war. Hence, unlike Sailer, I am a proponent of mixed-race marriages. That said, if you have everybody heterogeneous, the focus might shift away from nationalities and religion to something like class status. Losers always want to stir up trouble.

Mixed race marriages ends up equaling ... more races. See Haiti and Dominican Republic.

So, genocide? What does a Black+White marriage produce, if not more Blacks? Given the victim culture in the West and all the benefits of identifying with a protected group (not white and straight), is there any upside to identifying with your White half or quarter and not with your Malay, African, Filipino etc half?

Also, at what point does one of the parties to the marriage lose genetically from such a match and in terms of probabilities for personality, IQ, pro-social behavior etc? Take a Swede and a Pygmy, have them make babies - whose posterity has won and whose has lost, most likely?

"Also, at what point does one of the parties to the marriage lose genetically from such a match"

Not even wrong.

"Given the victim culture in the West and all the benefits of identifying with a protected group (not white and straight)."
Yeah, everyone I know pretends to be a Black Gay.

I certainly would have if I could have pulled it off. Since it would mean guaranteed admission with scholarships to any school, a guaranteed position with any big law firm and almost certainly a partner position as well. I would have to be an absolute fool to turn that down.

JL,

It is commonplace for the children of mixed white-Asian couples to use the white name on college applications. Why? You know the answer. It is also common for the children of mixed Hispanic-Other couples to use the Hispanic name on college applications. Why? You know the answer.

Several government agencies have actually conducted "racial examinations" to verify that Hispanic applicants were really Hispanic. Apartheid's racial police right here in the USA.

I understand that being gay is a problem in Black culture. But Rachel Dolezal and Shaun King (as well as the head of the NAACP) prove that there is a market in passing for Black.

Rachel Dolezal, you will not be forgotten.

"heterogeneous"

You keep using that word, I do not think it means what you think it means.

- Inigo Montoya

Singapore? There it looks like diversity and proximity bring prosperity.

Looking back, there are any number of things we could have done better to position ourselves with Islamic countries. We played a poor long game. From the Carter Doctrine forward?

Regardless of that though there doesn't seem much choice for the for the developed world other than to fight the terrorists. And win.

Diversity works great so long as you have an authoritarian central government that has no qualms about cracking the heads of anybody who doesn't go along with the program. That's how the Alawites ran multicultural Syria for years until everybody realized they were outnumbered 5:1.

In that context Singapore was pretty lightly authoritarian.

Brazil?

G, EH,

Freedom House ranks nations. On a scale of 1 (most free) to 7 (least free), Singapore gets a 4

cough cough we should also look at the racial make-up of the inhabitants of Singapore - 75% Chinese, 12 Malays, 9% Indians etc. A striking lack of African and ME diversity. And, of course, they also have a great big hand of government that prevents the appearance of isolated ghettos and cracks down on any heads too enthusiastic about civil conflict.

Diversity does not work period. It is a condition to be managed. There are no upsides to it. At best, it's benign, but only if the differences between the populations are trivial in the given context.

Real diversity is neurodiversity, and diversity of thought, which require a strong common identity to produce beneficial effects without undermining societal cohesiveness. But you can have that (and historically have had that greatly) in all-white, all-X (French, German) societies. I chose those examples because European countries are the ones being aggressively enriched with new dollops of diversity.

We haven't seen it yet, but diversity is also the death knell of the welfare state (those based on solidarity, not on bribing unruly minorities). It takes a powerful majority with as little class friction as possible to decide on a course of action that leads to a welfare state, otherwise the redistribution is unpalatable.

Singapore has no qualms about forcing the newcomers to assimilate. Moreover, it can do one thing that NO other country with high immigration has been able to do in the last generation -- forcibly send back almost all migrants with temporary worker visas regardless of their attachment or claims on staying when their contracts run out or when the state chooses. If the US were to show such consistency with illegals, I would also be more tolerant of a slightly larger inflow of legal immigrants.

G.

"Singapore? There it looks like diversity and proximity bring prosperity."

Let's try something more like the truth. A pro-business (economic development), authoritarian regime, with Chinese people (77% in 1970, 74.3% in 2014) is likely to be very successful. See Taiwan, the PRC, Hong Kong, Macau, and Singapore.

Beyond that, Singapore isn't "diverse" in the Western sense at all. There is a dominant Chinese system and everyone has to accept it. Yale style protests about "you don't feel my pain" are more than slightly unacceptable. Racial caterwauling is not tolerated. Singapore is like America 100+ years ago. Back then America had a very self-confident WASP elite that imposed their ideas on America. Everyone else was free to succeed, but whining wasn't accepted.

Does any of this apply to Brazil? No.

"Singapore is like America 100+ years ago. Back then America had a very self-confident WASP elite that imposed their ideas on America. Everyone else was free to succeed, but whining wasn’t accepted."
Ha ha ha.

JL,

We can debate if “everyone” was free to succeed in WASP America 100 years ago. However, any number of non-WASP groups were already highly successful irrespective of whether WASPs liked them or not. The quotas that Harvard imposed on Jews were to limit their numbers, not provide affirmative action.

Save us from frightened old white men posting in their pjs.

G,

Detailed, substantive, logical posts from several folks... And your best response is racism?

Lame.

I am struck more than anything by the façt that these aamazing little constituencies pop up all over social media, each with a hot take confirming their political, social and yes racial, priors.

I don't have energy to refute them all, but find them equally "lame."

None balance all the real forces in Realpolitik.

G,

You appear to have plenty of time and energy to post, but with a distinct lack of substance. If you have better arguments as to why Taiwan, the PRC, Hong Kong, Macau, and Singapore do so well and Brazil does not, you can offer your thoughts. I would be the first to argue that Realpolitik is a powerful influence in the world. However, one day after the bloodbath in Paris it is not working in your favor.

I disdain all of the tribes who "a day after" spend their energy slotting the tragedy into "a theory of everything."

G,

The day after is when the failing of certain ideologies are most apparent (yours it would seem). A common assertion (from the time) was that Isolationism died in America on December 8th, 1941. This can't be fun, but it seems that your worldview didn't do well on the 13th.

"Syrian who apparently passed through Greece as refugee was 'one of Paris killers' - Syrian, French extremist and Egyptian among Islamist cell behind Friday’s attacks that killed at least 128, say investigators"

Guardian.

I'd be more convinced if some of them actually lived in diverse places. I spent 8 years in a 95% Mexican neighborhood in Chicago during one of the most violent periods in the city's history. I wouldn't say it was the nicest neighborhood I've lived in, but it wasn't terrible either.

"If you have better arguments as to why Taiwan, the PRC, Hong Kong, Macau, and Singapore do so well and Brazil does not, you can offer your thoughts."
After a lot of lost wars, warring states, dinasties, a republican revolution, war lords, a communist revolution, Maoist genocide, Deng's reforms, more repression, a bubble (but we are told African countries' history of human disaster are genetically caused...), China is finally as rich (per capita) as Brazil, not exactly a paragon of good administration. Two or three centuries in the future, that Han-dominated society will be almost as rich as an moderately Caucasian sociery, maybe. Hurra for China.

G,

Realpolitik is one of my favorite ideas. Please tell us how many Syrian refugees China is taking (or at least offering to take). Please tell us how China handles the Uighurs and Tibetans. In my view, China is very much driven by Realpolitik. Europe less so.

Julius,

The Warring States period in China was from 475 to 221 BC. Not a big problem of late. China certainly experienced plenty of turmoil from the decline of the Qing dynasty (say the 1790s) to the end of Maoism (say 1978). However, the long history of China includes both periods of conflict and extensive stability. The tragedy of China is that the dynastic decline of Qing coincided with the rise of real European power making possible long-lasting foreign encroachment in China. That era is over (and has been for decades).

China is now another Asian "Tiger". A typical "Tiger" takes around 40 years to reach 60% of U.S. per-capita GDP. See Fred series PGDPUSTWA621NUPN (Taiwan), PGDPUSJPA621NUPN (Japan), PGDPUSSGA621NUPN (Singapore), PGDPUSHKA621NUPN (Hong Kong), PGDPUSKRA621NUPN (S. Korea), RGDPCHCNA625NUPN (China). A good guess is that China will reach European levels of prosperity in another 20-25 years.

John L.

We can debate if "everyone" was free to succeed in WASP America 100 years ago. However, any number of non-WASP groups were already highly successful. The quotas that Harvard imposed on Jews were to limit their numbers, not provide affirmative action.

Julius,

Brazil has been a democracy since 1982. In 1982, per-capita GDP (2005 dollars) was $6,301. In 2010, per-capita GDP was $8,324. See Fred series RGDPCHBRA625NUPN. In other words, per-capita GDP rose by around 30% in 28 years. The number for China are "different". In 1982, per-capita GDP (2005 dollars) was $1,216. In 2010, per-capita GDP was $7,746. See Fred series RGDPC2CNA625NUPN. In other words, per-capita GDP rose by around 537%.

A few quotes should help

Clemenceau "Brazil is a country of the future and always will be"
Napoleon “Let her sleep, for when she wakes she will shake the world”

Both quotes are of questionable authenticity. However, it does appear that Napoleon was somewhat knowledgeable about China and the quote does appear to reflect his views.

@Gochujang: It's natural that these constituencies will crop up online, when there is very little public space for airing/refining/discussing their views and doing so publicly imposes significant costs to social status, employment and wealth.

Quash that totalitarian impulse and let people carve out a space for their free discussions. I don't see lefties letting up on the bullhorn, including on the Internet, since they've practically won every battle these past 50 years.

And, yes, reality is complicated.

Singapore's Chinese percentage is about the same as Canada's White percentage.

War seems to occur regardless of the degree of diversity. The current civil wars in the Ukraine and Syria, wars in the Balkans, Europe, etc. in the past, were and are all between closely related people.

Bob,

"War seems to occur regardless of the degree of diversity. The current civil wars in the Ukraine and Syria, wars in the Balkans, Europe, etc. in the past, were and are all between closely related people."

Mankind has been ravaged by war for millennia. However, the subject has been studied statistically. Back in 1993, Samuel Huntington wrote an article in Foreign Affairs with the sentence “Islam has bloody borders”. It wasn't PC back then and still isn't. However, it was the sort of claim that was testable and true. Note that he (Huntington) didn't say that "Islam is racked with war" (internal conflicts). He said that the borderlands between Islam and the rest of the world test to be bloody.

A combination of geography, history, and mass migration has brought Europe into this maelstrom.

Islam, like Christianity, is a universalist creed that asserts for itself dominion over the entire globe. Christianity was also a creed of bloody expansionism. It's just that nobody really believes in Christianity like their forefathers did.

Statistically, the vast majority of wars seems to occur between very closely related people.

B,

"Statistically, the vast majority of wars seems to occur between very closely related people"

Throughout history, technology severely limited the scope of human population movements and the geographic scope of war. Of course, you can find exceptions, but the above assertion is broadly true. Not any more though.

And how much will that matter? (Syrian refugee backgrounds are probably the worst case scenario, illegal “invaders” the best case scenario)

Guess which scenario I think would be best.

A false flag conspiracy on behalf of the FN?

A new report is out. Unconfirmed at this point (Guardian). Quote

"Syrian passport found on Paris attacker's body belonged to refugee who passed through Greece

The holder of a Syrian passport found near the body of one of the gunmen who died in Friday night’s attacks in Paris passed though Greece in October, a Greek minister told Reuters.

“The holder of the passport passed through the island of Leros on October 3, 2015, where he was identified according to EU rules,” said Nikos Toscas, Greece’s deputy minister in charge of policing.

A Greek police source told Reuters that European countries had been asked to check the passport holder to see if they had been registered.

While this heavily implies that one of the gunman came into Europe along with refugees, Syrian passports are known to be valuable currency amongst those trying to enter Europe, and it is not confirmed yet whether the holder of the passport is indeed the perpetrator."

I keep on seeing this thing about whether the guy was really from Syria or not. I can't see why it matters. If the Syrian passport is what gets people refugee status, then the Syrian passport is what matters for refugee policy. Doesn't matter if Syrian refugees are terrorists or if people who obtain Syrian passports are terrorists, the implications for policy seem to me the same.

Asher,

You are so unenlightened. Of course, the refugee agencies of Europe can instantly tell the difference between a real Syrian with a Syrian passport and non-Syrians with a Syrian passport.

This is totally obvious.

anime tokyo cheap dubbed distro credit card ask link
lady tramp disney animation good christmas gift children dogs link
inside out dubbed spanish portugues italian russian good pixar credit card only christmas children giftvmind good ok? ok? link

So far, this is the most cogent comment.

153 (or more) dead French people killed by terrorists? Not a problem. The possibility that France and Europe might wake up to the consequences of mass immigration? The end of the world.

Immigration isn’t fundamentally about economics, its about people. People who bring their flaws, failings, burdens, weaknesses, and terrorism with them. The Swiss author Max Frisch once wrote

“We imported workers and got people instead”

Max Frisch had something else to say that’s just as important. He wrote a play, “THE FIREBUGS,”

The play is a classic cautionary drama from 1958 in which a city is terrorized by unknown arsonists. Frisch compares the advent of the arsonists to the Communist takeover of Czechoslovakia and to Hitler’s rise to power.

A quote from Frisch

“What everyone could see coming for so long duly came in the end: stupidity, never to be extinguished, now to be called fate.”

One of the best condemnations of Open Borders, ever.

@PS - or not. Recall the famous speech by the fictional character Walter White in Breaking Bad, at the high school auditorium, pointing out that airplane crashes are quickly forgotten. He's right. Life goes on. How many people died in that Spanish terrorist incident of a few years ago? I don't even recall the details...bomb on a train was it not? Several dozen or several hundred?

RL,

9-11 brought a lasting shift in U.S. politics. Before 9-11 Amnesty for illegals wasn't even controversial. After 9-11 Bush waited six years and then failed to get it through Congress. America is still fighting in Afghanistan 14 years later.

The Spanish attacks had less impact because the government claimed ETA was responsible (untrue). The public blamed Spain's involvement in the Iraq war, not the terrorists. After a change in government, Spain withdrew from Iraq.

None of that is going to happen this time.This is the second major attack in France in one year.

"The Spanish attacks had less impact ". The government had been leading in the opinion polls for years: https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/7/7e/ElectionMonthlyAverageGraphSpain2004.png (source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spanish_general_election,_2004 )

THREE DAYS LATER they were out of office.

Because they lied about the attackers, attempting to acquire an election advantage -

'Perhaps rightly, on the anniversary itself, much of the Spanish media are not discussing the actions of the then government in the days following the 2004 attacks.

But behind the show of unity, there is deep resentment at the way former Prime Minister Jose Maria Aznar reacted to the attacks.

It is true that the first reaction of many people in Spain, on hearing the news of bombings that morning, was that the Basque militant group Eta was to blame. Eta had killed more than 800 people over the course of its four-decade-long insurgency.

But from the beginning, there was strong evidence, including the type of explosives used, that al Qaeda-inspired militants were behind the attacks.

For three days, Mr Aznar and his ministers kept pointing the finger of blame at Eta.

Amalio, who survived the attacks, accuses Mr Aznar's Popular Party (PP) government of "lying".

With elections just around the corner, he believes they manipulated the facts to suit their own ends. "They could not recognise that it was about our participation in an absurd war in Iraq."

Despite this, the PP lost the general election four days after the bombings.' http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-26526704

Almost as if the Spanish electorate had a couple of years before seen this sort of switch for political gain involving a terrorist atrocity - but hey, it is hard for any number of Americans, even today, to know the difference between subjects of the KSA and Iraqis. Though it must be said that our military forces/intelligence agencies remain really good at making sure no drones ever destroy anything in the KSA - remaining, as it does, an important front in the terrorist war. Besides, all that Western oil money needs to get recycled anyways, right? Wouldn't want to get the Saudis irrirated - after all, we know the sort damage that even one Saudi can do when he puts his mind (and wealth, and connections...) to it.

MK, PA,

"The Spanish attacks had less impact"

The context was/is impact on immigration / anti-terrorism policy. Of course, the Spanish attacks had dramatic consequences (but not on immigration / anti-terrorism policy). Note that I wrote

"The Spanish attacks had less impact because the government claimed ETA was responsible (untrue). The public blamed Spain’s involvement in the Iraq war, not the terrorists. After a change in government, Spain withdrew from Iraq."

And Spain promptly replaced their government and withdrew from the coalition in Iraq. Voilà. No more terrorism.

(No more Islamic terrorism. They still have problems with Basque separatist problems, but that has nothing to do with Islam).

No they don't. ETA declared a definitive ceasefire in October 2011. Their last attack was earlier that year.

Just stop resisting the terrorists and they will leave you alone for a little while as they deal with the others!

That strategy is working fine for most countries.

C, D,

Herbert Hoover said of Pearl Harbor

"You can't go around the world sticking pins in snakes and not expect to get bit"

He was right. However, snakes still need pins. If Turkey took a decisive role in crushing ISIS and Europe stayed out, Turkey would have a lot more terrorism and Europe a lot less. So far that isn't happening.

My guess it that eventually China will take over the "sticking pins in snakes" job. Of course, China will suffer the consequences.

"One of the best condemnations of Open Borders, ever." – Frisch would be very surprised.

B2,

Artists don't get to choose how history interprets their work. Orwell was a man of the Left. However, it was the Right that (correctly) saw Orwell's warnings about the dangers of Soviet Communism. "The Firebugs" was written (in 1953) as a denunciation of Nazism and Communism. However, Frisch's warnings apply all to well to our time. His quote about “We imported workers and got people instead” is one of the core truths about the dangers of Open Borders.

Let's even say that we want immigrant workers. Is there any reason to taking Sunni Arabs? Any, whatsoever? I don't believe there's a single case of a successfully integrated Sunni Arab community in the Western World. Arab Christians, definitely. Shiite Persians, definitely. Educated Pakistanis or Turks, certainly. Given that the supply of low-skilled third world workers wanting to immigrate to the Western world is essentially infinite against a very finite supply of visas, why is Europe primarily taking the group that so far has worked out the absolute worse?

Because our countries are run by people who hate us and want to get rid of the societies that produced us. The inability to assimilate is seen by them as a feature, not a bug.

Highly doubt it.

What is your ethnic and social background, Nathan?

Have you even considered taking an American spelling course?

NS - what would that have to do with anything?

Plenty of Polish and other Eastern Europeans would come if we need workers. And we know from history that they will assimilate well and become patriotic americans in a generation or so. They also have a track history of fighting bravely in our wars. People who only think about economics forget that you do need the Audie Murphy's to win some wars.

Middle eastern muslims have no track record of assimilation anywhere. More Brit muslims are fighting for ISIS than in HM armed forces.

The US military has thousands of servicemen of Middle Eastern descent. Most of them muslim.

(NB: I'm leaving out Jewish service members, of which there are about 10,000.)

Look at the pew polls, about half of U.S. muslims think the country should be governed by Sharia. Thats not compatible with any western notions of democracy or rights. And haven't we had several terror attacks by muslims in the armed forces?

This is so true.

Why don't European countries simply open their borders to Chinese immigrants? And close them to Muslims?

More to the point, why doesn't Saudi Arabia open their borders to the Syrian refugees?

TOD,

"More to the point, why doesn’t Saudi Arabia open their borders to the Syrian refugees?"

Let me rephrase that for you

"More to the point, why doesn’t Saudi Arabia open their borders to ISIS and al-Qaeda?"

I must read that play! My apartment building is in the 'war zone' i.e. high-crime area of a city, and last night we had the second arson event at my apartment complex in the last month. This and other vandalism has been going on for years. Some of us kind of know who it very probably is but everyone is afraid of making an accusation that turns out wrong. Also there are two good candidate-suspects, one much more so than the other. Both of them are sad cases arousing pity in others. Contributing factors include that none of the landlords or businesses in the area want to pay for fences or security cameras. Everyone considers it someone else's problem until it's their apartment or property that gets burnt and even then they probably just consider it part of the cost of being in this area.

I know - all those God damn German, Irish and Scotish immigrants really messed up the U.S.

Am I forgetting the incident where they massacred hundreds of people in NYC?

"Initially intended to express anger at the draft, the protests turned into a race riot, with white rioters, mainly but not exclusively Irish immigrants,[3] attacking blacks wherever they could find them. The official death toll was listed at 119."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_York_City_draft_riots

Who do you think are the dominant users of meth and heroin?

TOD,

"Who do you think are the dominant users of meth and heroin?"

Meth - Poor whites, some Hispanics.
Heroin - Much more likely to be black.
Oxycontin (and analogs) - Typically poor whites.

All,

The 153 death toll was from CNN. The current number is 128 (and will rise by a few). From the Guardian.

"A Syrian who apparently passed through Greece as a refugee last month, a known French extremist and an Egyptian were said to be among a cell of eight Islamist gunmen who killed nearly 130 people in a bloody wave of suicide bombings and shootings that left France reeling.

Islamic State on Saturday claimed responsibility for the atrocities, which the French president, François Hollande, denounced as an “act of war” that must be countered “mercilessly”.

French authorities said at least 128 people were killed and up to 300 more injured – including 80 critically – in the six attacks, France’s deadliest since the second world war and the worst witnessed in Europe since the 2004 Madrid railway bombings.

As police worked to identify the eight militants, all of whom died in the attacks, it emerged that at least one of the fighters, identified by his fingerprints, was a French national with known links to Islamist networks from the southern Paris suburb of Courcoronnes.

Investigators also told French media a Syrian passport, belonging to a man born in 1970, and an Egyptian passport had been found lying close by the bodies of two other jihadis, both of whom blew themselves up in the course of their attacks.

Greece’s citizen protection minister, Nikos Toskas, said separately that the owner of the Syrian passport had entered the European Union through the Greek island of Leros on 3 October, adding: “We do not know if the passport was checked by other countries through which the holder likely passed.”

As Europe struggles to contain an influx of hundreds of thousands of migrants, the revelation that one of the Paris killers may have travelled the refugee route, been registered in Greece in accordance with EU rules, and managed to make his way northwards to join what unconfirmed reports suggested was effectively an independent jihadi cell could prove deeply damaging. "

Note that the "best case scenario" isn't one in which fewer attacks will result, or fewer innocents at risk. Nope. Hundreds killed or wounded, and all Tyler worries about is whether he'll be able to hawk open borders without a few caveats.

If the terrorists are "illegal invaders", it surely presages fewer sttacks than if they are legal immigrants, which the right tells us, are plenty.

+1

The recent events on American college campuses and in Paris have a philosophical connection. The Libertarian moment is ending. Libertarianism appears to be based on (among other things) the denial of human nature. In Paris, Columbia (MO), and New Haven human nature is asserting itself. Not an edifying sight to be sure. But quite real.

"Libertarianism appears to be based on (among other things) the denial of human nature."

There is a very close relationship between how libertarian countries are and how nice a place they are to live. It's not really disputable...the most libertarian countries are the best places to live, and the least libertarian countries are the worst places to live. (And countries in the middle in terms of libertarian characteristics are in the middle in terms of being nice places to live.)

This can be easily seen by taking two rankings for human liberty: Freedom House's ranking of political and civil liberties freedoms, and the Heritage rankings of economic freedom. Countries that score at the top of both rankings are the most libertarian, and are the best places to live. Countries at the bottom of both rankings are the least libertarian and are the worst places to live, and countries in the middle in those rankings are in the middle in how nice a place they are to live.

MB,

Yes, it is quite true that European countries and Europe's colonial offshoots score high on both freedom and prosperity. However, if you control for colonial history the linkage doesn't do as well. Singapore scores low on freedom but very high on prosperity. South Africa scores high on freedom but is quite poor. India scores high on freedom, but is also poor. South America generally scores high on freedom but is rather weak on prosperity.

The Freedom House report from 2015 has an interest subtitle "Discarding Democracy: Return to the Iron Fist". Quote

"More aggressive tactics by authoritarian regimes and an upsurge in terrorist attacks contributed to a disturbing decline in global freedom in 2014. Freedom in the World 2015 found an overall drop in freedom for the ninth consecutive year."

I am not advocating these trends... However, anyone looking at the world honestly has to pay attention to what is happening, not what we want to happen.

It took me all of about 60 seconds to look this up. The 2015 Heritage index (focusing on economic freedom) ranks the countries you mention as follows:

#2 Singapore (categorized as "Free")

#72 South Africa (Moderately Free)

#128 India (Mostly Unfree)

#118 Brazil (the most populous country in South America; Mostly Unfree)

source: http://www.heritage.org/index/ranking

MB,

"There is a very close relationship between how libertarian countries are and how nice a place they are to live. It’s not really disputable…"

Yes, it is highly disputable. This is basically the Bernie Sanders Denmark fallacy. Bernie believes (apparently) that

"If the whole world (or just the U.S.) adopted Denmark's policies we would get Danish results"

Sadly, the world isn't Denmark (or Vermont). Denmark's policies don't work in much of Europe (see Italy and Greece) and indeed, they don't even work in Denmark (for non-Danes).

Danish policies include being rather unwelcoming to immigrants, refugees and asylum seekers, by the way. I wonder if Bernie knows that?

Almost exactly what I was thinking, too, when I read that.

Very very sad indeed.

"Will concealed carry become a more popular idea in the United States?"
One can hope.

Let's pray that it is mandated. Because that will stop anything like this from happening in the US.

Jan tells the truth by trying not to.

These are attacks on "soft targets". If the such targets became a little harder, terrorists would have to work harder. They will choose different targets, attempt fewer attacks and succeed in fewer.

Of course, Mandatory gun toting would be a bad thing, going as it does against personal liberty and the spirit of the US constitution. Though perhaps, if the penalty for it was levied by the IRS, it would pass judicial muster.

Is it considering the real nature of the second amendment as an affirmative case for (pre 2000s) swiss style citizen's militia?

i do wonder why mandatory or even optional gun safety courses in school are non existent

"i do wonder why mandatory or even optional gun safety courses in school are non existent."
Soviet Union had those--for boys at least. Maybe it is the model you want to emulate. Did the earliest state-funded American schools have those? Did the early community-funded American schools have those?

@Adrian Mandatory gun toting would definitely not kill more people than it would save, right? Because people never make mistakes with guns, and never foolishly decide to use them in the heat of the moment because they just happen to have a gun on them, and never make a rash decision to off themselves because the loaded gun is ready and waiting in the nightstand. I am guessing you don't live in the US, and I am guessing you are not familiar with US firearm statistics.

Some of us, call us free men and woman, would rather make that choice ourselves.

Some others, call them tyrants, call them Jan, want to disarm free people "for their own good."

call us free men and woman, would rather make that choice ourselves"
Well, some "free men" did their choice in Paris yesterday. I would rather call them dead meat.

But I love how shooting around became "a choice", a universal human right even. Give me a Kalishnikov or give me death.

All the evidence supports my position. If you think the freedom to carry a weapon whose purpose is to murder should trump human life then fine. The idea that you holding a gun tucked away in your knickers is going to prevent a mass killing suicide mission is preposterous.

Mandatory carry is ridiculous, just as Jan's prohibition dream is ridiculous. Jan, you do understand the AK-47s are not a provision of French law, while the defenselessness of the victims is very much a provision of French law.

I live in a state with common concealed carry. In a given crowd, there are several people who could just suddenly start shooting. And guess what! They fucking don't.

How on earth can you say, after hundreds of people just got slaughtered by gun in a strict gun control space, that all the statistics are on your side? Sick.

Yeah, it's just a fact that allowing more guns means more shootings. I'd encourage you guys to look at the evidence, and even point you to it, but you will not be convinced.

Second, the implication was that allowing people to carry weapons somehow prevents shootings, which aside from a few anecdotes is bullshit and has been debunked many times.

"And guess what! They fucking don’t."
Except for all those who do. But American mass shootings and gun violence in general--the higest levels in any developed country-- are big coincidences.
"while the defenselessness of the victims is very much a provision of French law."
If common people carried K-47s in soccer stadiums, restaurants, churches, music shows, kindergartens and planes, everything would be saved...

Jan, I've read enough from you that I know you can at least make a coherent point. John, all reason and observation escapes you, and the best thing you could do for your side is give someone else the mic.

Jan, I agree that broad gun availability does not preclude gun attacks, just as strict gun control does not preclude gun attacks. I trust you won't dismiss Paris or the history of Chicago or Mexico as mere anecdote.

Now if you're in a room and a shooter comes in to kill everybody, what sort of jurisdiction would you rather be in? I gather from your writing you'd rather be in the sort where no one in the room has a chance of defending himself or saving others. I do not understand it, but I grant you your worldview.

America also has too many spoons. How much less ice cream would we eat if we had to use our hands? Think of the millions of lives that could be saved from obesity and diabetes!

@Tall Dave
As far as I know, other countries are not spoon-deprived, maybe America is will-deprived.

Jan,

More gun ownership will lead to more suicides. But it certainly has not been "debunked" that gun ownership and carry prevents shooting sprees. There are many incidents where they did.

John L: Americans have more access to high-capacity food transfer systems than any country in the world.

Fortunately, sanity is starting to prevail as more progressive areas are limiting access to assault beverage containers, we can only assume in any sane world that assault tableware will be next.

There's no legitimate reason for anyone to have more than one small spoon.

Why do you say mandatory gun toting would violate the constitution? Largely the same people who passed the Bill of Rights also passed the 1792 Militia Acts, which required all free able bodied males (excepting clergy and some religious dissenters) to own a weapon and ammunition and serve in the militia (which could then be called into active service by their government). They clearly thought requiring citizens to own and use firearms was perfectly compatible with the Constitution.

They didn't mandate firearms per se. It was just a form of conscription. The law said they had to procure a gun within six months of being "drafted" (not the word they used, but effectively the same thing).

In other words, big government telling people how to spend their money. If only the had required them to buy health insurance too.

How does the prospect of getting shot deter a suicide bomber?

"Let’s pray that it is mandated." Always about coercion with you guys.

Setting off a suicide bomb in a crowd of people is a 'soft target' but not one that would be made harder by concealed carry.

Not 100% sure but I suspect neither Iraq or Afghanistan has much in the way of gun control. Yet that doesn't deter insurgents from attacking crowded markets or Mosques.

Open carry of automatic weapons is fairly common in a country like Afghanistan - and nope, it doesn't seem to have much effect on car bombs being used to create mass death.

Both countries have laws regulating the possession and use of weapons, like everywhere else ever. Believe it or not personal ownership of e.g. antitank rockets, heavy machine guns, and bulk explosives is generally against the law. Sometimes people don't follow the law, though.

Boonton,

A well armed citizenry won't stop car bombings or suicide bombings. However, Israel has had quite a bit of success with armed citizens stopping other terrorists. Quote from Public Security Minister Gilad Erdan

“In recent weeks, many citizens helped the Israel Police neutralize terrorists carrying out attacks. Citizens trained in the use of firearms are a force multiplier in the struggle against terror.”

The question is bigger than that. France and the rest of Europe have decided that the Islamic belief system is compatible with western values, even though:

- previous experience proves the opposite
- and Islam at its core dehumanizes non-believers

Whether the Paris attackers are Syrian or second-generation immigrants is not the point. That they share the same belief system is.

If the west was serious they would start to restrict immigration from Muslim countries and/or start vetting such immigrants for their attitude to liberal values. I would even argue that the greater cost isn't these violent attacks, as terrible as they obviously are. The cost of Muslim underperformance in work and school exerts a significant and sustained drain on the public purse.

There is no pragmatic benefit to mass immigration from Muslim societies. None. It's just virtue signaling in a decadent age.

You could say the same of Christian societies through much of their history. You generalize for the actions of a few.

The problem is its really not that few. In most Arab Muslim countries 70%+ believe Sharia law should be the law of the land and 40%+ accept the death penalty for apostasy. (Link below). You're absolutely right about Christian societies historically. If some 10th century European country was time transported to the modern world, its denizens would assuredly be savage and un-assimilatable.

It took centuries of cultural-biological co-evolution to prepare Europeans to be productive members of industrial liberal democracies. The same process applied to Muslim Arabs would certainly be successful over a similar timespan. But telling the citizens of European capitals that they're going to have to spend the century terrorized in a grand social experiment is little comfort. It's possible their great-grandchildren may be obedient liberal French citizens. But the people moving there today believe that clitorises should be cut off and adulterers stoned to death.

http://www.unz.com/gnxp/smite-the-unbelievers/

Islam is a warrior ideology. Mohammed is the only founder of a major religion to do the following AFTER he became enlightened:

1. Kill men with a sword.
2. Take people captive and make them his slaves.
3. Have nonconsensual sex with his female slaves aka rape.

Did the Buddha do this? No. Christ? No. Lao Tzu? No. Confucious? No. Only Mohammed.

Christian societies changed their game over a period of several brutal centuries that included such charming highlights as the Thirty Years War. Moreover during those centuries they conquered much of the globe. The Islamic world is only starting this modernisation. It will have an easier time of it, and be less succesful at conquest than Christendom was. But that is not saying much.

What do you mean less successful? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PFSin5Gctv8

They were barely beaten off in France 90 years after their Prophet died. The Second Rome fell to them. Spain was only reconquered around the time the Americas were discovered. My people have spent centuries either fighting them, or paying them tribute, and we were lucky in not being forced to convert, though we had to donate plenty of genetic material for the whitening of the Ottomans. And now they're winning by the Womb.

You're either applying a series of double standards here with regard to Christians and Islam or simply have too limited a timeframe of thought. Just because the West had a period of technological and economic ascendancy does not mean that this was anything but a blip in the wider march of Islam and it does not mean that victory should be counted in the terms that we want it to (GDP, patents/million citizens etc).

Sorry for not being clear. I only meant that this millenium's mob of Jihadis will be less successful at conquest than were, say, the Spanish, Portugese, French and British Empires. The original mob in the 7th and 8th centuries was a different matter.

>You could say the same of Christian societies through much of their history.

Sure. Did any Muslim countries import tons of Christian immigrants? Of course not.

Of course they did. They called them slaves.

Anon,

"Of course they did. They called them slaves."

Over a period of centuries (14) the Islamic world imported 9-17 million black slaves and perhaps 1-1.25 million white slaves. Obviously exact numbers do not exist. Islamic slavery was a major source of conflict between Islam (the region, not the religion) and the West. The famous Bombardment of Algiers (1816) was triggered by Arab slavery.

This cannot be true. The 1-1.25 million white slaves figure should be just for the Balkans alone, let alone what piracy and prisoner taking netted from all across Europe, and as far North as Iceland.

By prisoner taking, I meant enslavement of enemy soldiers in the aftermath of a battle (especially for naval warfare) or of enemy non-combatants after a siege.

> You generalize for the actions of a few.

Nathan W supports Hamas, but begrudgingly criticizes ISIS.

Between them, they represent less than 1% of Muslims.

NW,

"Between them, they represent less than 1% of Muslims"

Soldiers are well less than 1% of the U.S. population. However, foreigners think (rightfully) that they represent U.S. policy. For better or worse, Hamas and ISIS have widespread support in the Arab/Muslim world. Support for Hamas can be interpreted as simply opposition to Israel. However, support for ISIS (and terrorism in general) is a very different matter. See "16% of French Citizens Support ISIS, Poll Finds" (Newsweek) and "Poll reveals 40pc of Muslims want sharia law in UK" (Telegraph) and "Public Opinion in the Islamic World on Terrorism, al Qaeda, and US Policies".

PS - I agree with your comparison to the US army. However, the US army enjoys much higher support among Americans than militant wings of Islam among Muslims.

(I support bombing ISIS by the way, until we can make sure the Armageddonists don't get their way in a major war, then sweep them away later.)

What ISIS really wants: http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2015/03/what-isis-really-wants/384980/

NW,

"However, the US army enjoys much higher support among Americans than militant wings of Islam among Muslims"

Among Muslims who care enough about their convictions to act on them (die for them), support for ISIS is much, much higher. More relevantly, the number of Muslims who care enough about their convictions to fight ISIS is very low. Of course, plenty of Alawites and (other) Shias are willing to fight ISIS. Hardly helpful in creating stable, liberal states.

Let me use an analogy. How many Bolsheviks were there in Russia when the communists took over? Not many. However, among the Russians willing to do anything, they were the vast majority. Did a majority of Russians actively support the Bolsheviks? Probably not. Did it matter? No.

Do a majority of people living in the Islamic state support ISIS even now? Probably not. Does it matter? No.

History tells us that the fanatical minority willing to take up arms and kill matter a lot more than the passive majority that doesn't agree.

"History tells us that the fanatical minority willing to take up arms and kill matter a lot more than the passive majority that doesn’t agree"

Unfortunately true.

Which Christian societies are immigrating into Muslim societies?

It may seem counter-intuitive, but the best response is to invite more refugees, and be even more welcoming to those underprivileged groups who are so beset by racism and capitalism that they lash out despite themselves.

We need to clearly signal our commitment to tolerance. We should exempt all Muslims from security checks and consider laws that allow Muslims (and only Muslims) to own firearms and explosives, just to show that we fully trust them and are deeply committed to empathy with their struggle against the system that marginalizes them.

Don't forget "safe spaces" and "space to destroy". The annual carbeque in Paris comes to mind.

Re: Muslim underperformance in school, there is that finding that Bangladeshi and Pakistani migrants with weak economic backgrounds tend to outperform British with the same, and go on to university more (despite worse outcomes overall for those that do attend university).

These two Muslim groups perform more or less the same in GCSE grades http://www.crimeandjustice.org.uk/sites/crimeandjustice.org.uk/files/u217/GCSE%20results_0.jpg

Workplace underperformance exists, but a lot of that is the traditional homemaker role by women.

Not that I actually am a fan of mass Muslim integration, just that it is worth pointing out that the kind of Asiatic education striving that some (such as the Singaporophile Chip) on here would take to be the Holy Grail of immigration policy ("If their nation's "SAT" is good and they do well on exams, let 'em in to be dynamic!") is absolutely compatible with both this sort of atrocity and with generally poor social outcomes.

But actually acknowledging that would require thinking about whether educational and employment metrics are a good measure of a person's worth as a potential citizen to your country, or if there's actually something more here (which y'all strivers wouldn't want to think about, now)...

BS. I live in an area with many Muslim-Americans. How are they experiencing recent terror attacks? Like the rest of us...except for them they hit closer to home:

http://www.detroitnews.com/story/news/local/wayne-county/2015/11/13/dearborn-killed-lebanon-attacks/75716698/

I'm really looking forward to the Shia-Sunni conflict breaking out on US soil.

Probably be a less impressive conflict than the one between slave holders and their supporters and the rest of the U.S.

TAG,

In the U.S. Muslim immigrants (so far) tend to be highly-educated and professional. Conflict levels are very, very low. I live in one of the most Muslim towns in the U.S. (famous for its Muslim population, but only outside of the U.S.).

The history here is easy. The Muslim immigrants coming to the U.S. have tended to be more elite (Detroit might be an exception). Europe has imported poor people from the Middle-East, North Africa. Big difference.

At one time, the single most educated group in America was Libyans (averaging a PhD). Why? Because only the upper reaches of the elite had any chance of getting here.

The unsurprising conclusion here is obvious. Limited, elite immigration from the Middle-East (or anywhere else) brings people who can do well in America (and mostly thrive). Large scale, unskilled immigration typically fails.

A sad note is that the children of the highly-successful immigrants in my town have more problems. Strangely enough, rather tolerant parents sometimes produce intolerant children (with no support from their elders). Many kids "Americanize" into slacker land. Not a good thing either.

My experience of Muslims in the US has been similar. However, I believe Somali Muslims in Minnesota may be more representative of the lower classes.

TOD,

"However, I believe Somali Muslims in Minnesota may be more representative of the lower classes"

Exactly. The tragedy of our time is that the dominant Libertarian/Neocon/Left elites either can't tell the difference or want them all. Of course, they want them at arms length... Not in their precious bubble.

As a citizen of a dwindling Eastern European country which has seen massive brain drain, I see a problem in a strip-mining developing countries of their best and brightest. Their individual outcomes might be better, but their countries are impoverished beyond measure. I say "no immigration" whatsoever. I'm all for keeping our fools and criminals, if that means that we can at least keep our prodigies too.

"Whether the Paris attackers are Syrian or second-generation immigrants is not the point."

it is an important point because Syrian foreigners calls for one policy response (bomb ISIL into non-existence) while second generation immigrants calls for another (stop Islamic immigration).

j,

Latest reports suggest a mixture of both. However, the first possibility also requires ending Schengen and stopping the invasion.

Whether the Paris attackers are Syrian or second-generation immigrants is not the point. That they share the same belief system is.
...

There is no pragmatic benefit to mass immigration from Muslim societies. None. It’s just virtue signaling in a decadent age

On the pro side to immigration is larger GDP, more production, a more dynamic economy. (You can't even say lower labor costs because while more workers does lower wages the fact is more pay also increases demand so it isn't clear which one will win).

On the con side you're going to cite 6-8 people who kill about 160 in a coordinated attack? Hard figures are helpful here. If all, most or even some Muslim immigrants have the belief system of the terrorists then we would have tens of thousands dead and attacks happening every week.

George Will, before he became senile, had a good phase for what you're doing. You are attempting to 'commit sociology'. You're taking the actions of a dozens and trying to generalize to millions. It doesn't work, if the belief system of millions leads to this, then we have a lot of missing terrorism. If it does not lead to terrorism, then you're trying to solve the wrong problem.

Boonton,

The economics of mass Middle-Eastern immigration to Europe have been studied to death. They are dismal. The immigrants have very high levels of criminality and welfare utilization and low levels of labor force participation / productivity / education. Every study (the UK, Sweden, Norway, the Netherlands, etc.) comes up with large negative numbers. How could it be otherwise?

From Borjas

“There’s also been a lot of fake fog thrown into the the question of whether immigrants pay their way in the welfare state. It’s time for some sanity in this matter as well. The welfare state is specifically designed to transfer resources from higher-income to lower-income persons. Immigrants fall disproportionately into the bottom part of the income distribution. It is downright ridiculous to claim that low-skill immigrants somehow end up being net contributors into the public treasury.”

A single terrorist incident should not change a long-standing and positive policy. However, it should be a tipping point for a system that has been failing for decades.

"There is no pragmatic benefit to mass immigration from Muslim societies. None. It’s just virtue signaling in a decadent age "

Is simply true.

The economics of mass Middle-Eastern immigration to Europe have been studied to death. They are dismal. The immigrants have very high levels of criminality and welfare utilization and low levels of labor force participation / productivity / education. -

In 2012 there were 665 murders in France. That isn't Paris but the entire country. In contrast NYC had 414, and that was after a period of what was considered exceptional declines in crime.

As for whether or not immigrants 'pay for themselves'. Who exactly is paying? Clearly the immigrants feel they are better off in France than elsewhere, otherwise they would leave. Your suggestion of 'virtue signaling' indicates non-immigrant French are willing to enjoy less consumption in exchange for the 'psychic good' of knowing they are providing housing and French food stamps to immigrants. Yet this would imply that France is at the border of its production function. Yet continued deflation suggests that France is nowhere near the limit of what its economy can produce.

So to me this suggests that immigrants are there because it is useful to both the immigrants and the French economy that they be there. I would suggest that a problem with some of the studies you allude to is that they are missing the incidence of welfare.

For example, I once knew a landlord who loved section 8 in the US. For the community his property was in, rent paying tenants were hard to come by and often entailed a lot of trouble (sure they may pay on time for a while but then they stop or start short paying etc.). Section 8, though, was perfect. The gov't pays the rent on time every month. So he loved to own houses loaded with section 8 clients.

Now if you were trying to calculate who pays for whom, you would see the section 8 tenants as receiving massive amounts of welfare while the landlord is nothing but an upper-middle income taxpayer. Yet while the section 8 clients do in fact benefit from the rent, the calculation wasn't quite right. the landlord isn't some disconnected 'producer' but a person whose income is in fact produced by the welfare. One might think from a simple calculation that the landlord would resent the section 8 'takers' but the reality is more subtle.

Not saying immigration makes France rich (although I don't there's a single example of any nation in history that achieved economic prosperity by closing borders) but the idea that immigration is a net cost to a nation that is born simply because of high minded generosity or 'virtue signaling' defies economic reality. When does an economy simply engage in massively expensive 'virtue signaling'? Is France really that generous a country?

Boonton,

Not in order.

"although I don’t there’s a single example of any nation in history that achieved economic prosperity by closing borders"

I guess you have never heard of a country called "The United States of America". You can find information about it on the Internet. In 1920, the U.S. ended mass immigration. The next 5 decades brought unprecedented prosperity to America, American workers, and the middle-class. Mass immigration resumed after 1970. Real wages are lower now (after 45 years) than they were back then.

"In 2012 there were 665 murders in France. That isn’t Paris but the entire country. In contrast NYC had 414, and that was after a period of what was considered exceptional declines in crime."

The issue is not whether America has more crime than France, but immigrant crime in Europe. Let's try some facts. See "In France, Prisons Filled With Muslims" (WaPo). Quote

"This prison is majority Muslim -- as is virtually every house of incarceration in France. About 60 to 70 percent of all inmates in the country's prison system are Muslim, according to Muslim leaders, sociologists and researchers, though Muslims make up only about 12 percent of the country's population."

The same is true (with different numbers) in every country in Europe. Quote from the same article.

"In Britain, 11 percent of prisoners are Muslim in contrast to about 3 percent of all inhabitants, according to the Justice Ministry. Research by the Open Society Institute, an advocacy organization, shows that in the Netherlands 20 percent of adult prisoners and 26 percent of all juvenile offenders are Muslim; the country is about 5.5 percent Muslim. In Belgium, Muslims from Morocco and Turkey make up at least 16 percent of the prison population, compared with 2 percent of the general populace, the research found."

"Clearly the immigrants feel they are better off in France than elsewhere, otherwise they would leave."

France's welfare state is rather nice compared to living in the countries the immigrants have made for themselves. So what? That makes the immigrants a burden, rather than an asset. You do know the difference.

" Your suggestion of ‘virtue signaling’ indicates non-immigrant French are willing to enjoy less consumption in exchange for the ‘psychic good’ of knowing they are providing housing and French food stamps to immigrants."

French elites (like American elites) make themselves feel good by imposing destructive immigrants on their lessers. As a rule, French elites (like U.S. elites) never live in immigrant dominated neighborhoods and never send their children to schools ravaged by Open Borders. A useful quote from David Brooks may help here.

“They congregate in exclusive communities walled in by the invisible fence of real estate prices, then congratulate themselves for sending their children to public schools. They parade their enlightened racial attitudes by supporting immigration policies that guarantee inexpensive lawn care.”"

"For example, I once knew a landlord who loved section 8 in the US. For the community his property was in, rent paying tenants were hard to come by and often entailed a lot of trouble (sure they may pay on time for a while but then they stop or start short paying etc.). Section 8, though, was perfect. The gov’t pays the rent on time every month. So he loved to own houses loaded with section 8 clients."

Yes, people profit from handouts. What exactly does that have to do with the economics of immigration?

"One might think from a simple calculation that the landlord would resent the section 8 ‘takers’ but the reality is more subtle."

Net transfers from natives to immigrants make the natives poorer. Not too hard a concept.

"Not saying immigration makes France rich"

Net transfers from natives to immigrants make the natives poorer. Not too hard a concept.

"Is France really that generous a country?"

France is not that generous a country. But French elites are quite willing to sacrifice their lessers for the smug pretense of moral superiority.

Switzerland doesn't exactly welcome all comers either.

TOD,

Switzerland has huge number of foreign workers, but not many "refugees" (economic migrants, welfare shoppers). Overall, the Swiss system works a lot better. However, the immigrant neighborhoods of Switzerland aren't charming (nor are they notably dangerous). Spend some time in Oerlikon to see what this means.

Switzerland is more like Singapore. Large numbers of foreign workers. Relatively few imported burdens.

Even Switzerland, with what may be the best class of immigrants in the world, e.g. wealthier than the native swiss, seems to be fed up with them.

Boonton,

"On the pro side to immigration is larger GDP, more production, a more dynamic economy."

Does that come with #sarcasm hashtags? France has the most Muslims in Europe. A "larger GDP, more production, a more dynamic economy" aren't exactly the words people use to describe France.

A few more aspects of the dismal economics of Middle-Eastern immigration is worth noting. Refugees have uniquely bad economics. Why? Because they are considerably less likely to work than the rest and much more likely to be welfare dependent.

Of course, you don't have to take my word for it. Let's try Martin Wolf of the (pro-Open Borders) FT. See "The benefits of migration are questionable - Cosmopolitanism is incompatible with our organisation into territorial jurisdictions"

From "Sweden’s ugly immigration problem" (Globe and Mail). Quote

"So how are things working out in the most immigration-friendly country on the planet?

Not so well, says Tino Sanandaji. Mr. Sanandaji is himself an immigrant, a Kurdish-Swedish economist who was born in Iran and moved to Sweden when he was 10. He has a doctorate in economics from the University of Chicago and specializes in immigration issues. This week I spoke with him by Skype.

“There has been a lack of integration among non-European refugees,” he told me. Forty-eight per cent of immigrants of working age don’t work, he said. Even after 15 years in Sweden, their employment rates reach only about 60 per cent. Sweden has the biggest employment gap in Europe between natives and non-natives.

In Sweden, where equality is revered, inequality is now entrenched. Forty-two per cent of the long-term unemployed are immigrants, Mr. Sanandaji said. Fifty-eight per cent of welfare payments go to immigrants. Forty-five per cent of children with low test scores are immigrants. Immigrants on average earn less than 40 per cent of Swedes. The majority of people charged with murder, rape and robbery are either first- or second-generation immigrants. “Since the 1980s, Sweden has had the largest increase in inequality of any country in the OECD,” Mr. Sanandaji said.

It’s not for lack of trying. Sweden is tops in Europe for its immigration efforts. Nor is it the newcomers’ fault. Sweden’s labour market is highly skills-intensive, and even low-skilled Swedes can’t get work. “So what chance is there for a 40-year-old woman from Africa?” Mr. Sandaji wondered.

Sweden’s fantasy is that if you socialize the children of immigrants and refugees correctly, they’ll grow up to be just like native Swedes. But it hasn’t worked out that way. Much of the second generation lives in nice Swedish welfare ghettos. The social strains – white flight, a general decline in trust – are growing worse. The immigrant-heavy city of Malmo, just across the bridge from Denmark, is an economic and social basket case.

Sweden’s generosity costs a fortune, at a time when economic growth is stagnant. The country now spends about $4-billion a year on settling new refugees – up from $1-billion a few years ago, Mr. Sanandaji said. And they keep coming. Sweden automatically accepts unaccompanied minors. “We used to take in 500 unaccompanied minors a year,” he said. “This year we are expecting 12,000.”

Yet Sweden’s acute immigration problems scarcely feature in the mainstream media. Journalists see their mission as stopping racism, so they don’t report the bad news. Despite – or perhaps because of – this self-censorship, the gap between the opinion elites and the voters on immigration issues is now a chasm. According to a recent opinion poll, 58 per cent of Swedes believe there is too much immigration, Mr. Sanandaji noted. The anti-immigration Sweden Democrats party is now polling at between 20 per cent and 25 per cent.

Sweden is a cautionary tale for anyone who believes that Europe is capable of assimilating the hundreds of thousands of refugees and migrants who are besieging the continent, or the millions more who are desperately poised to follow in their wake. The argument that these people are vital to boost the economy – that they will magically create economic growth and bail the Europeans out of their demographic decline – is a fantasy.

It’s really very simple, Mr. Sanandaji explained. You can’t combine open borders with a welfare state. “If you’re offering generous welfare benefits to every citizen, and anyone can come and use these benefits, then a very large number of people will try to do that. And it’s just mathematically impossible for a small country like Sweden to fund those benefits.”"

Of course, ultimately the dismal economics are just another straw for the camel. Mass immigration brings vast social problems. Look up "banlieue" and "tournantes" for a better idea of what mass immigration really. Hint, it's not some fantasy about a bigger GDP.

Most of these are easy (at least the very likely answers)

"What will turn out to be the exact backgrounds and personal stories of the attackers?"

Second generation children of ordinary Middle-Eastern / North African immigrants. Went to French schools. Poor students. Drifted between odd jobs. Became radicalized.

"And how much will that matter? (Syrian refugee backgrounds are probably the worst case scenario, illegal “invaders” the best case scenario)"

The Syrian economic migrants (they are not "refugees") probability is low. Illegal "invaders" might end Schengen. Second generation children (with possibly some foreign help) is most probable.

"How much will this strengthen the French National Front?"

Some, but enough to win an absolute majority in French national elections? Probably not.

"What will the response be of the French government?"

Inside France? None (not PC). Outside of France? More attacks on ISIS are likely.

"The American government? (Don’t forget the NATO treaty obligation."

None.

"And will this mean Obama has to back off in the South China Sea?)"

No.

"How much will it weaken Merkel, or possibly split the alliance with CSU, or strengthen AfD?"

This will definitely hurt Merkel. She portrayed mass immigration from the Middle-East as a plus for Germany and Europe. Now she looks like a fool.

"How much does it weaken the position of Schengen?"

Moderately.

"Will concealed carry become a more popular idea in the United States?"

Rhetorically yes. Substantively no.

Another prediction. Hollande is a big loser. Other then the hard core Islamists and their Open Borders allies, everyone is going to blame Hollande for allowing a second attack in less than a year.

Imagine if a second 9-11 had occurred on Bush's watch?

Peter Schaeffer: "Hollande is a big loser... everyone is going to blame Hollande for allowing a second attack in less than a year."

Or else they may suppose that he was correct in joining the fight in Syria in September, and this proves that there is a grave danger home and abroad.

"Imagine if a second 9-11 had occurred on Bush’s watch?"

Ten years later Republicans would still go around saying "Bush kept us safe."

TheAJ,

"Ten years later Republicans would still go around saying “Bush kept us safe.""

Perhaps, but no one (including almost all Republicans) would take it seriously. That's Hollande's problem. He (and the French establishment) treated "Je suis Charlie" as a substantive response. After Pearl harbor, America built (and used) nuclear weapons. The comparison has problems, but the point should be clear.

Solidarity marches are a joke. Curtis Lemay was not funny.

If there is one thing Republicans do well, its take themselves seriously, and not much else. A bunch of primary voters cheered when Jeb made the comment that George "kept us safe." You can't make it up.

These are the same people who rail on Benghazi while ignoring the dozens of US officials killed abroad. You can't make it up.

"Perhaps, but no one (including almost all Republicans) would take it seriously. That’s Hollande’s problem. He (and the French establishment) treated “Je suis Charlie” as a substantive response. After Pearl harbor, America built (and used) nuclear weapons. The comparison has problems, but the point should be clear."

The US was attacked by an actual country. It was an act of war. The Charlie Hebdo attackers were freaking born and raised in Paris. Did the US double nuclear weapons spending after the OKC bombings? No, because it would have been stupid. The US response to the Boston marathon bombings was "Boston Strong" Your comparison is idiotic. Actually the better comparison would be that in response to 9/11 the Bush administration made the choice to take out of its aggression on a country that was completely uninvolved in the attacks.

What course of action are you suggesting that the French take?

the Bush administration made the choice to take out of its aggression on a country that was completely uninvolved in the attacks. -

Afghanistan was 'completely uninvolved'? Thanks for your counsel. Always an education.

You know that I am speaking of Iraq. Going to Afghanistan was a relatively simple affair. However, the formulation of the Bush doctrine, the war on Iraq, the creation of the "Axis of Evil" was all accelerated by 9/11. You must be a complete idiot if you believe the response to 9/11 began and ended with the invasion of Iraq. You must be quite stupid.

Okay, you knew exactly what I mean, and you got to make a cute response, and you knew where this conversation was going to lead. So . . . do you have anything intelligent to add?

began and ended with the invasion of *Afghanistan*

TheAJ,

"A bunch of primary voters cheered when Jeb made the comment that George “kept us safe.” You can’t make it up."

Alas, reading comprehension issues. The context was a hypothetical second attack in the U.S. and a real second attack in France. There was no second attack in the U.S. giving credence to "George kept us safe". The was a second attack in France. Big difference. You do know that Jeb is scraping bottom in the polls of late... You do know that...

"These are the same people who rail on Benghazi while ignoring the dozens of US officials killed abroad."

As long as America has an interventionist foreign policy our embassies and consulates are going to be attacked. The issue isn't the attack, but Obama and Hillary lying about a movie when they (more or less) immediately knew it was terrorism. it's the lies that destroy people. Ask Martha Stewart and Richard Nixon (his ghost).

"The US was attacked by an actual country. It was an act of war. The Charlie Hebdo attackers were freaking born and raised in Paris."

More reading comprehension problems. Note "He (and the French establishment) treated “Je suis Charlie” as a substantive response. After Pearl harbor, America built (and used) nuclear weapons. The comparison has problems, but the point should be clear.”"

"Did the US double nuclear weapons spending after the OKC bombings?"

On June 11, 2001 Timothy McViegh was executed in Terre Haute, Indiana. How many terrorist has France executed?

"The US response to the Boston marathon bombings was “Boston Strong”"

Indeed, just as pathetic as “Je suis Charlie”. A useful comparison is the attempted assassination of FDR on February 15, 1933. FDR was not injured, but Mayor Cermak of Chicago died on March 6, 1933. The killer was executed on March 20, 1933. Dzhokhar Tsarnaev should have been executed back in 2013.

"Actually the better comparison would be that in response to 9/11 the Bush administration made the choice to take out of its aggression on a country that was completely uninvolved in the attacks."

Afghanistan played no roll in 9-11? Really? Remarkable what you can "learn" online.

"What course of action are you suggesting that the French take?"

End Schengen. End mass immigration. No more economic migrants pretending to be "refugees". Deport radical Islamists. Deport illegals from France. Execute the organizers of the 11/13 plot. Strip French citizenship from anyone who goes to fight for ISIS. Create a French Guantánamo.

Remind us why FDR invaded around seventeen countries in Europe and Africa that had not attacked us at Pearl Harbor?

Removing the foremost state sponsor of terrorism after 9/11 wasn't exactly a policy stretch, especially given that Saddam's regime had kicked out inspectors, required no-fly zones to keep them from massacring Kurds and Shia, and was shooting at US troops on a daily basis.

"Alas, reading comprehension issues. The context was a hypothetical second attack in the U.S. and a real second attack in France. There was no second attack in the U.S. giving credence to “George kept us safe”. The was a second attack in France. Big difference. You do know that Jeb is scraping bottom in the polls of late… You do know that…"

Why would watching something on television require reading comprehension? Lol, this is too funny. His remark was, "As it relates to my brother, there is one thing I know for sure, he kept us safe. . .You remember the rubble?" It wasn't, he kept us safe after 9/11, it was "he kept us safe." He was literally keeping us safe while standing over the rubble of an attack that killed 3000.

Would you agree the Obama has kept us safe?

"As long as America has an interventionist foreign policy our embassies and consulates are going to be attacked. The issue isn’t the attack, but Obama and Hillary lying about a movie when they (more or less) immediately knew it was terrorism. it’s the lies that destroy people. Ask Martha Stewart and Richard Nixon (his ghost)."

I've honestly never understood why or how that made a difference in anything. I guess the pettiness of some people knows no bounds.

"On June 11, 2001 Timothy McViegh was executed in Terre Haute, Indiana. How many terrorist has France executed?"

Both of the Charlie Hebdo attackers were killed. Should the French government have resurrected them from the grave to execute them, just to show their strength? France does not have the death penalty. Obviosuly, as 9/11, OKC, Boston showed, its not much of a deterrent.

"Indeed, just as pathetic as “Je suis Charlie”. A useful comparison is the attempted assassination of FDR on February 15, 1933. FDR was not injured, but Mayor Cermak of Chicago died on March 6, 1933. The killer was executed on March 20, 1933. Dzhokhar Tsarnaev should have been executed back in 2013."

Okay, so far your policy solution has been instead of Je Suis Charlie, let us execute faster. Amazing policy advice.

"Afghanistan played no roll in 9-11? Really? Remarkable what you can “learn” online."

It was pretty clear the country I was refering to. In fact, I already emphasized it. Is there a point in being deliberately stupid? Or are you actually stupid?

"End Schengen. End mass immigration. No more economic migrants pretending to be “refugees”. Deport radical Islamists. Deport illegals from France. Execute the organizers of the 11/13 plot. Strip French citizenship from anyone who goes to fight for ISIS. Create a French Guantánamo."

Its amazing that it took that long for you to get past the stupidity and finally lay out intelligent ideas. Well done. Glad its out of your system.

David,

The comparison was between a a direct attack from an opposing country against an attack by your own citizens. What do FDR, Europe and Africa have to do with this? David, please do not waste our time with your uneducated, "I want to talk too!" commentary.

"Removing the foremost state sponsor of terrorism after 9/11 wasn’t exactly a policy stretch, especially given that Saddam’s regime had kicked out inspectors, required no-fly zones to keep them from massacring Kurds and Shia, and was shooting at US troops on a daily basis."

Iran still around. North Korea still around. For all intents and purposes, a just dangerous Iraq still around. I guess there is still hope for perpetual war, if that is what you wish.

TD,

"Remind us why FDR invaded around seventeen countries in Europe and Africa that had not attacked us at Pearl Harbor?"

Some history may help here. FDR refused to go to war with Germany after Pearl Harbor even though many of his senior staff urged him to do so. He believed (rightfully) that it would divide the now unified nation. He personally favored war with Germany (and was secretly already waging it) but knew that public opinion opposed it.

Hitler solved the problem by declaring war on the U.S. Only then did the U.S. go to war with Germany.

Peter -- Saddam not only declared war on coalition forces on a weekly or monthly basis, the regime committed daily acts of war against them.

TheAJ -- Sorry you're having trouble following the logic here. If FDR was justified in invading half the world, Bush was certainly justified in leading a 60-country coalition to remove Saddam.

You nailed it. But the most important question now I think is to go up and unravel their supply chain. Why could they get explosives and automatic weapons in the first place? Who financed it? Why did it happen several times this year? I'd then put these people in prison together with the rapists and look the other way. And I'd investigate the police. A major automatic weapons trade just under their noses is not just negligence, it's at best institutionalized incompetence and at worst massive corruption.

yo,

"A major automatic weapons trade just under their noses is not just negligence, it’s at best institutionalized incompetence and at worst massive corruption."

You are presuming that the weapons were purchased in France. The Charlie Hedbo weapons were purchased in Slovakia (apparently) as deactivated movie props. They were converted back to fully functioning weapons later.

In any case, some of the terrorists blew themselves up. There is no legal source for suicide vests. Explosives have legal uses making it hard to completely control them (although tight regulations definitely help).

I think all of this is right.

Opponents of state surveillance take one in the gut, here.

It's a level playing field politically; the left or right can gain or lose, depending on how ridiculous they appear.

I estimate no measurable effect on the US gun law debate. That is just a culture battle.

The South China Sea? are you kidding?

Overall, surprise, there is no decent retributive response.

"Opponents of state surveillance take one in the gut, here"

+1

The Rand Paul crowd is another loser today.

aka arnold kling is right: civilization v barbarity is the order of the day

to crib from the republican debates when a "comic book villain" (isis not trump) rise as an enemy of america who are literally crucifying christians a libertarian flinty national interest means disengagement discussion doesn't work

How would more spying on innocent people have prevented this?

These attackers were innocent right up to the moment they pulled the triggers. You have to spy on innocent people because you never know when they might commit an act of terror. There's little point spying on people who have already been tried and found guilty.

No they were not innocent until they pulled the triggers.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inchoate_offense

" You have to spy on innocent people because you never know when they might commit an act of terror."

Wow! Quis costodiet ipso custodes?

Not even spying!

In several cases. these kinds of attackers are on actual surveillance lists!

In which case there's nothing wrong with spying on them.

>Opponents of state surveillance take one in the gut, here.

Why? France is one of the most profligate spiers and they have failed to prevent two huge attacks in a single year. This is clear evidence that mass surveillance is useless in practice, at least against terrorism.

Anarcho-tyranny http://en.metapedia.org/wiki/Anarcho-tyranny

They are spying on the law abiding who harbor unpopular ideas regarding immigrants, Jews, climate change and what have you. Look at how after every terrorist attack people wring their hands that this might strengthen "far Right" parties (immigration restrictionist lefties dubbed far rightists). The potential terrorists have a significant amount of comfortable space within their communities to find eachother, meet, refine ideas, even start planning things, while protected by the zones de non-droit, PC, their moderate covers and so on.

"there is no decent retributive response"

ISIL has claimed responsibility. ISIL purports to be a nation state. The French are going to be less fastidious in their response than the Americans were in looking for Jihadi John. Ask him how that worked out.

The militarily swift and effective French. This is a novel theory.

Well, they do have a non-French legion at their disposal...

The war nerd disagrees, datroof.

http://exiledonline.com/war-nerd-glory-to-the-french/

The French are more than capable of massacring an army that has 20,000 soldiers but whose primary mechanized weapon is a Toyota pick up truck with a .50 cal. in the back.

Can we get a prediction market on any of these questions? Because I have some large sums of money I'd looove to put down.

Dangerman - would that not promote terrorism? Just kidding, but there are laws on the books preventing you from taking out an insurance policy on a third party, unrelated to you, just for that reason.

Muslims are a fifth column in France, not integrated, poorly educated, radicalized , filling up the prisons, hostile to the native French. The worse predictions will come to pass, Some day they will rule France helped by the (useful idiots) liberal media who blames their problems on the racist French.
France will become the Republic of New Algeria. Immigration will not be a problem anymore, because no one will want to immigrate there.

Be careful where you plan your next holiday, Stefan: in France that very comment would land you in prison for "incitation à la haine raciale", since France has an interestingly counterintuitive conception of what "freedom of speech" means. Of course if you want to calumniate and insult Sarkozy, Marine Le Pen, Zemmour or Houellebecq, you are more than welcome: Prime Minister Valls has set an example: http://www.lindependant.fr/2015/01/08/manuel-valls-la-france-ce-n-est-pas-michel-houellebecq-pas-l-intolerance-et-la-peur,1976657.php His prevention of terrorism has apparently been less successful.

I have no doubt some French Muslims are good law abiding hardworking people, but on the whole years of unchecked immigration has brought in a lot of intractable problems such as the crazy radicals responsible for these attacks.

Anyway reading about what happened to the Paris victims, I am too upset to comment right now.

May you live in interesting times.

Meanwhile, in another planet...

"Xavier Sala-i-Martin ‏@XSalaimartin 6 Std.Vor 6 Stunden
Aposta: qui serà el primer il.luminat del PP o de C's que relaciona els atacs de Paris amb el procés independentista? En 3, 2, 1,..."

The translation would be something like this: "Bet: who will be the first one of Partido Popular or Ciudadanos that links Paris attacks with the independentist process?"

It's even more distasteful to use a terrorist attack to push the personal agenda of independence.

Look, 150 people dead......free Catalonia. It doesn't work that way, does it?

You at least have to admire the sheer tenacity of the intellectual class in pushing this insipid PC idealism. It would be hard enough trying to brainwash people into ignoring their instincts, let alone when the real life counterparts of these fairy tales are literally blowing themselves up and taking a hundred of your neighbors with them. If nothing else, the chattering class shows incredible fortitude when events in the real world challenge their platitudes.

Being PC doesn't mean being naive.

No, it sometimes means that, but usually means evil and totalitarian imposition of an insane credo on others. Thanks for helping.

This will not help the FN in France.

It will help Hollande as now he has an excuse to co-opt FN rhetoric.

I actually think this is right. People will unify and support more action from the current leadership. Look at what happened after 9/11.

It's certainly possible and in other countries attacks on the state have strengthened the position of whoever is currently ruling. In a general sense this might be a stronger effect for leaders from the right. In this case will Hollande be able to co-opt even the softer parts of the FN policy on immigration/national culture etc given his own parties hostility to them ?

Is the golden era of individual liberty coming to an end?

China is ascendent with belief in the political collective. The U.S. is being devoured from within by a young generation that demands coddling at the expense of freedom, and an open border policy thats importing millions who embrace statism.

Europe seems positively eager to abandon their classic liberal cultures for the muscular intolerance of the Islamic world.

In one way I think Orban is right. In the U.S. and Europe, the left sees a path to power through the immigration of statist cultures. Everyone else has been cowed into silence by political correctness.

Unfortunate only crass and insincere opportunists like Trump have tapped into the zeitgeist. Will a reasonable leader emerge to voice a rational and reasonable defense of liberal society?

Liberty, diversity or equality. Choose one.

Or embrace contradictions.

Toynbee gives numerous examples of this Volkswanderung in his "Study of History". The Paris attacks are a very small part of a much bigger phenomenon that appears to be a mass movement of peoples. There may not be a successful counter for this by those being invaded. On the other hand, it may well rejuvenate moribund, decadent western societies. Probably no one alive today will live to see the denouement.

Rejuvenate or replace? I'm not being rejuvenated if my posterity is diminished in its control or ownership (moral, cultural etc) of the country. 30 million Frenchmen in France still makes a France, just like it did 200 years ago. 30 million French and 40 million foreigners do not make a France, not like it used to be. Even if the foreigners were perfectly integrated and, like Gibbon said of the aspirations of the Romans for their Gothic refugees, "insensibly blended with the great body" of the French people, that would still not mean that French society has been rejuvenated. Territoriality is a basic human instinct.

People advocate liberty in principle only when it results in the maximization of THEIR liberty in practice. In a globalizing world, middle classes (especially those of the developed world) see themselves in competition with the middle classes of the developing world; more freedom in principle (globalization, free trade) has expanded the effective freedom of people in poorer countries while constricting the effective freedom of the middle (and poor) classes in the rich countries as they find themselves at a competitive disadvantage. Hence the angst, and the backlash, and the populism and heightened sense of nationalism.

So yeah, the age of individual liberty is temporarily coming to a close. It may revive at a later date if First World people get over their sense of malaise.

China is becoming more liberty oriented. Economic rights. Citizens who feel oppressed by bureaucrats. It just doesn't make the news.

"Is the golden era of individual liberty coming to an end?"

In a word, no.

In multiple words, see my previous comments on two rankings of human liberty: Freedom House's rankings of political and civil liberties freedom, and Heritage's rankings of economic freedom. Both have increased for the world as a whole over the past decades, and likely will continue to increase.

MB,

Freedom House doesn't agree.

The Freedom House report from 2015 has an interest subtitle “Discarding Democracy: Return to the Iron Fist”. Quote

“More aggressive tactics by authoritarian regimes and an upsurge in terrorist attacks contributed to a disturbing decline in global freedom in 2014. Freedom in the World 2015 found an overall drop in freedom for the ninth consecutive year.”

cheap america legal aid green card path children spouse up three adult relatives credit card only garantees permanent residency

Very sad.

Attackers background? It's complicate. France have gone to war in the last 10 years in the Central African Republic, Libya, Mali, Ivory Coast, Chad, Iraq....on top of that there are Europe's suburban extremists. A lot of people does not like France, but French intellectuals are focused on how great the nation and ideals are instead of looking at how foreign policy is aimed at creating as many suicide enemies as possible.

Strengthen the FN? It depends on how aggressive is the discourse. People is hurt, if the discourse is too aggressive the FN followers will applaud but they look to other voters as radical as the attackers.

Schengen? If attackers were born in France, Schengen does not apply. If attackers we born in North Africa Schengen does not apply. If the shooters planned the attack in Spain or Belgium, bought the guns in Germany and then went to France, in that way Schengen matters.

Oh for gods sake don't be ridiculous. France is in the CAR to support UN peacekeepers after Muslim rebels toppled the government and started slaughtering those they deem infidels.

This war is 1400 years old. They didn't dream up this Allah thing in Medina and get all the way to the gates of Vienna with likes on Facebook. It's a long bloody ideological war that will only be won when Islam reaches an accommodation with the modern world. And it's just not happening. Even in places like Turkey and Malaysia secularism is in retreat.

I don't have the answers but it would help to dispense with the idiotic ones.

One key here for those who don't understand this, is that what you say is both true and untrue.

True for Islamists, and their lukewarm more devout Muslims.

Untrue for westerners and quasi-secularist non-radicalized Muslims.

But if we get enough attacks, it becomes true even for westerners.

The real victims here are the innocent clockmakers who will now be harassed by police.

Hate to point it out, but the real victims today are hundreds of people in france, and thousands who new them, and millions gripped in fear and grief. Lets keep perspective.

True, but it will lead to paranoia along the lines that he suggests.

I think we can all agree there is no number of innocent deaths that can ever justify any level of paranoia.

Are all worries paranoia? How do we know the difference?

Because Hitlery will tell us.

Hoosier: At first that may seem like a difficult question, but it's really very easy -- if you're "worrying" about a marginalized group, it's paranoia.

TallDave you are on a roll today.

+1

Maximum paranoia possible compared to one annual death globally? Easy call. I prefer not to live in paranoia, even if it means some level of risk. Your absolutist presentation makes it too easy. There must be some happy medium.

Aha, so you're a racist.

OT(?): Here's my review of Michel Houellebecq's 2015 novel "Submission" in Taki's Magazine:

http://takimag.com/article/submission_statement_steve_sailer/print#axzz3rR96FoCi

That's a good review. I have yet to pick up the book. It might be one of those books that is more meaningful in summary than in the actual reading.

Salon.com has a great article up putting the blame for these unfortunate massacres squarely where it belongs: "the WHITE RIGHT." http://www.salon.com/2015/11/14/and_so_the_hate_speech_begins_let_paris_be_the_end_of_the_rights_violent_language_toward_activists/

I encourage everyone to "signal-boost" this on your favorite social media site. Bill O'Reilly and the other racists must pay for this terrorist attack! Just as Salon.com says, white people are racist and "must be eliminated by any means necessary."

Are you trying to be funny?

"These are implicit threats and overtures to violence as racial authoritarian fascists are a clear and present danger to democracy and freedom. Thus, they must be eliminated by any means necessary."
He is talking about Conservatives calling Black Lives Matter and other groups racist fascists (akin to KKK and the Nazis, according to O'Reilly) and says it is incitement to violence against said "fascists". Exageration? Maybe, but it is exactly the opposite of what you think you read. He is not calling anyone fascist and he is not saying white people are racist--he is saying black people and allies are being called racist. You can agree or not with him, but a little reading would have spared you a lot of ridiculousness. Again, we see who are the real identity hustlers, who are playing the race card.

* Again, we see who the real identity hustlers are, who are the ones playing the race card.

I have some grim news for you: the debate is no longer about ideas, but about who gets to live where and run the institutions. And it's either going to be people who look like you, or it's going to be somebody else. That's what separate countries are for.

That's actually all it's ever been about, and all it will ever be about. The Enlightenment was an illusion.

I really love how the first reaction of people caught lying about ideas, "it is not about ideas!". I see, either people looking Joe Biden or people looking like Obama. Or is it either people looking Lucy Liu or people looking like Penélope Cruz? People who look like Hillary Clinton vs people who look like Amn Coulter. I always forget.
"And it’s either going to be people who look like you, or it’s going to be somebody else. That’s actually all it’s ever been about, and all it will ever be about."
Isn't it cute how obsessed racists are? Christians vs Paganism, South Korea vs North Korea, Einstein vs Hitler, Obama vs Romney, Tankman vs CCP, Luther vs Pope, Lenin vs Tzar. It was all about skin pigmentation.

John L,

Perhaps you haven't noticed the BLM folks savagely attacking Bernie Sanders, essentially because he is white and promoting a non-racial strategy for improving the lives of Americans (in his opinion).

Like it or not, TAG is pointing out some grim realities in contemporary American life. The attacks on Sanders and the Yale insanity are in the realm of "them and us", There is more to American life than the crude racism of the YouTube Yale student (and the BLM folks who attacked Sanders) fortunately. However, denying the hate emerging from some quarters in the U.S. isn't fruitful. Like it or not but BLM and the Yale student are explicitly rejecting the core ideas of the enlightenment (free speech, open debate, alternative opinions). They are a dark recrudescence of the evils of the past.

No, he is not. He is just sponsoring another person's lying about someone else's article--the linked article did not say what Jeremiah pretended it said. Now he decided to explain Man's History through skin pigmentation, just goes to show how crass racist ideology is.
"Like it or not but BLM and the Yale student are explicitly rejecting the core ideas of the enlightenment (free speech, open debate, alternative opinions)."
Fox, on the other hand, loves alternative opinions, this why they link peaceful protests to Hitler and the KKK. Sorry, but Yale students probably "look more like" TAG than they look like, say, Obama or yesterday's terrorists. So much for "That’s actually all it’s ever been about, and all it will ever be about."

JL,

Fox news doesn't try to shut down the NYT/WSJ/NPR/WaPo/etc.

Campus fascists go to great pains to stop any alternative opinions.

Perhaps you can see the difference.

He absolutely is blaming Fox News for the Paris terrorism, which is so incredibly stupid I can't bring myself to care about someone's possible misinterpretation of one sentence of the article.

I highly doubt he actually said what you say he said.

It's starting to sound like at least one on the attackers claimed to be from Syria. Refugee status is undetermined. I don't understand why refugee status is a worst case scenario. Is there some sort of emotional investment in believing in the innocent motives of all who claim to be refugees? And hypothetically, if it strengthens the National Front, isn't it a good thing that prescient politicians have more power?

Or, on second thought, why does this change anything when most people would have guessed that France would be dealing with semi-regular terror attacks? You can argue that French blood is worth the abstract idea of multiculturalism and economic growth, but are we just freshly mad about something we knew would happen? Because there are millions who belong to a death cult believing in non-negotiable world domination originating from refugee countries. They won't be hugged into being born-again liberals. This is what Europe has signed up for with its policies. There are some (the intentionally ambiguous author of this blog?) who should just openly state they think breaking eggs are worth it for the omelet.

Becuase absence of infomration is information, and information is also information.

We might have expected semi-regular attacks. But if none occured for a few years, then we would revise that. But since one did occur, we will be more confident in the expectation -- morover this is now the time to pay attention to this issue.

The terrorists are militarily weak. They may like to scare you into thinking there are "millions," but if there were, they would be able to field armies against real enemies, and not just to fill the gaps in collapsed states.

Possibly they have moved from hundreds of active terrorists to thousands, but this expansion has come at a cost. To get that much mindshare they had to fight everyone at once, an that can't end well for them.

No one has ever declared war on everyone and won.

ISIS is toast, and if all goes well it ends the cycle of terror as big business.

You don't win by improving your weaknesses, but by playing on your strengths. This is what the terrorists are doing. Terror attacks, insurgencies, hitting the enemy in his home, hiding among the population, exploiting weaknesses, the senselessness of it all, these are all coordinates of warfare since time immemorial. The statist-centralist response has always been terror, expulsion or extermination, to fit with its advantages. Like the War Nerd said, the ruler holding up a severed head is one of the most instantly recognizable pieces of propaganda one finds drawn or carved in history, surpassing every cultural and language barrier. The West has abdicated the means by which to adequately respond to these threats and bring to bear its advantages in military tech, hardware and discipline.

No one has declared war on everyone and received notes of surrender in return either.

Obama not naming the threat last night was a note of surrender.

Who should be named? As far as I know, since 2001, officially, it is the noum "terror". Or is it Islam? French-Arabs? Sudia Arabia? ISIS? It was not clear which organization--if any--was responsible.

Here's what happens when you declare war on everyone:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paraguayan_War

ISIS is not toast, because the no one really wants to commit to serious Sherman-like war, and no one wants to have their soldiers embedded in Syrian villages for a few decades.

"And hypothetically, if it strengthens the National Front, isn’t it a good thing that prescient politicians have more power?"
Of course. Goebbels famously said in 1943 that Germany's defeat would be Soviet domination for the Reich and much of the rest of Europe. Such a prescient guy.

Speaking of consequences, you wouldn't have a Reich without a Weimar.

Or a Hitler without monarchist and proto-fascist types types undermining the Republic. They really loved to hear about how Jews and leftists, not the Kaiser and his generals, were to blame for the military debacle.

What does Goebbels have to do with the NF?

If any Syrian refugee among millions ever does something wrong, then some people will assume that this is evidence that they are all equally evil.

People like you, Mr. "happy medium."

zero sum women amazing cheap paypal only rio buenos aires kiev manila hong kong houston single married discreet amazing women cheap mail green card good sex instalments 50% off cruises ticket tango go

"Syrian refugee backgrounds are probably the worst case scenario" <-- The worst case scenario would be the Islamic refugee skeptics as being completely justified? I see the worst case scenario as an Islamic takeover of France, a permanent extinction of the French mode of civilization, and more pervasive terror and death like this.

The open borders crowd hand waves this stuff away as statistically insignificant. That has some truth, more people die in mundane traffic accidents in a year than terror attacks and beheadings and such. But this is wrong. The damage to the society is deeper than just body counts. For example, the Charlie Hebdo attacks curtailed much free speech. Regular French Jews live under more of a constant threat.

Yeah, and the Tsarnaev brothers had a statistical chance of conquering America.

Don't let fear get out of hand.

Tsarnaev brothers was most disturbing because it showed the limits of the NSA / intel community. Russia warned us. We're scooping up emails and phone records. Still not able to prevent. Same with Texas cartoon shooting attempt. Those guys were being watched by the FBI (one of them at least.) A team of FBI agents, unable to do anything..

We see in Europe, the shooters are often on watch lists, too.

We hope paying for 14 FBI agents full time to watch one guy who might go sudden jihad prevents something...but what if this problem is simply intractable?

H,

The one word (and cheap) answer is deportation.

That only works if the people weren't born here.

C,

"That only works if the people weren’t born here"

France could send second-generation radicals to a French Guantanamo. Make it clear that they can either give up their French citizenship or stay locked up forever.

Europe's laws are notoriously malleable. Whatever the elite actually wants to do, it does. In theory, Merkel violated all sorts of laws by opening Germany and Europe to Syrians migrants. She didn't trouble herself with legal theories. The history of the financial crisis in Europe shows that laws and treaties exist only as long as they are expedient.

The major problem isn't random and unlikely terrorist attacks. Its the daily harassment and curtailments people in diverse societies face. It's having unofficial no go zones in your own city. It's paying through the roof for basic things like real estate and education solely to price out minorities. It's paying extra taxes to support them. It's not being able to speak your mind at work, at family gatherings, etc. It's having to live in a city where a group of foreigners that hates you drives the elections and policies, even though they contribute nothing.

These terrorist attacks represent only a small fraction of the costs of diversity.

"Regular French Jews live under more of a constant threat"

Maybe their academic and civil society elites should stop encouraging multiculturalism and the importation of cultural aliens like Muslims. Like Houllebecq's character in Submission said, there is no Israel for Europeans.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=44vzMNG2fZc

Is that Barbara Specter at 18:50?

There is an Israel for European Jews. So convert to Judaism?

Can I join the club without the snip?

>"The worst case scenario would be the Islamic refugee skeptics as being completely justified?"

To a university professor in a DC bubble? YES.

What on Earth good be more horrifying than having your beliefs (and self-worth) crushed by reality?

Perhaps, but that's not going to happen.

A load of American secularist right-wing neo-Reaction blog commenters, thinking they understand the motives behind France's relationship with the National Front...

Two other questions, one comment:

--what do the Paris Massacres portend for Canadian PM Trudeau's plan to bring 25,000 Syrian refugees to Canada over the next two months?

--don't the Paris Massacres signal a postponement of the Paris Climate Talks? Surely at this late date, postponement would be the sound alternative to a change of venue.

Many severely angry Frenchmen, tens if not hundreds of thousands (if not millions), have woken across France today.

Trudeau looks really stupid. Backing off airstrikes doesn't look good either.

Why?

Because ceding Syria to ISIS looks like a bad idea, much like ceding Afghanistan to the Taliban late in the Clinton administration and early in the Bush administration looks like a bad idea in retrospect. He's on the wrong side of history.

Now, if he was out there arguing to admit defeat and let Russia have it and restore Assad, that would be a coherent argument for backing off. But being conciliatory with ISIS just seems bizarre. He's one of the big losers in this tragedy.

How does training local forces imply ceding ISIS to Syria? The 4 jets involved, which fly in 3% of missions, aren't exactly a central plank to the efforts.

Your argument is "because the contribution is small, it's okay to make it smaller regardless of what's going on"?

I said Trudeau looks really stupid. I think that's pretty clear.

My argument isn't that it is small. It is that he plans to contribute in a different way.

"what do the Paris Massacres portend for Canadian PM Trudeau’s plan to bring 25,000 Syrian refugees to Canada over the next two months?"

It is not going to be as popular with the public as it was but the plan will go ahead. If one of those Syrian refugees engages in an act of terror once in Canada, and kills more than one or two people, the Trudeau government will be toast. The 25,000 was going to be a first installment on a bigger longer program and that bigger longer program is going to get significant push back.

And of course the Liberals ran on a program that terrorism was not a significant threat and that anti-terror measures should be scaled back significantly. Now he's screwed. Any sort of significant terror attack in Canada will be laid at his doorstep.

The Liberals will double down. To accept this annoyance as even a challenge to your worldview is unthinkable.

It's only 10% of annual immigration. They will be able to do background checks. But if ONE of them does anything wrong, a lot of people will interpret it broadly.

"They will be able to do background checks."

Get serious. You get a guy who arrives in Greece with the clothes on his back having fled from some part of rural Syria now controlled by ISIL.

What databases and government agencies are they going to be making inquiries to? Background checks would be a farce.

Do you suppose they are sufficiently, severely angry to ask their gynecologists for prescriptions for two each testicles?

What are you prepared to do; defend yourself, or be slaughtered like a swine?

My comment was not intended to imply that French women themselves lack testicular fortitude altogether: it followed instead from my dim recollections of episodic domestic bloodletting punctuating French history, from the Albigensian Crusade against the Manichean Cathari to the Massacre of St Bartholomew's Day against the Huguenots, down at least to the heady days of the French Revolution itself if not also on to the suppression of the Paris Commune and the subsequent period of anarchism of the deed.

I offered no prediction, I anticipate no specific outcomes: that said, spontaneous actions of various types might not surprise me. Expulsions and deportations from France might themselves constitute a civil response.

One other question: what do the Paris Massacres bode for heavy metal?
The bravado of the band's name "Eagles of Death Metal" today looks just as hollow as it does tragically ironic. The hollowness of the bravado may be what lingers for heavy metal enthusiasts, no telling how the bitter irony will play out.

But the band apparently survived.

Its not a heavy metal despite their name...

They aren't a metal band; the name is a fairly typical bit of hipster irony.

+100

101 apologies: I'm a literary ironist, not a narcissistic ironist.

The answer, my friend, is blowing in the wind.

None of these people are refugees; not a single one. They are economic migrants. They are mostly young males as well. It's hilarious (well, it would be if it weren't so repulsive and horribly consequential) how soft, cushioned academics like Tyler think young, fit men from outside the Hajnal lines can just be picked up and set down anywhere.

The immigrants are who they are; the Open Borders advocates are traitors with blood on their hands.

I bet it sounds better in the original German.

How many years in a refugee camp until you have a right to move on?

How do you define a refugee?

There is no definition, it's impossible to say, it's impossible to stop, we just have to throw up our hands and submit.

Are you nuts? Wouldn't ISIS just pour operatives through a free border? How many people need to die, how many lives destroyed, before we accept that borders exist for a reason - some cultures just don't mix. Western liberal democracy and Arabic theocracy just don't mix.

And here I thought they were trying to recruit people to the ME.

I understand that Cowen plays competitive chess and is very good. If that's true, then he should view the conflict in Syria (the attack in France last night is an extension of that conflict, a reprisal for France's bombing campaign against ISIS in Syria) as much like a game of chess. As has been the case since the outset of the civil war in Syria, the ultimate outcome (the ultimate outcome) will largely depend on the Sunni conscripts in Assad's army. Assad is Shiite (Alawite), as are the members of his elite republican guard and his army command, but his army consists almost entirely of Sunni conscripts (i.e., they were drafted); it's not surprising that most of the members of Assad's military are Sunnis given that less than 15% of Syria's population is Shiite (Alawite). Why haven't they deserted? Mostly for economic reasons (what would the defectors do in war-torn Syria with its economy in tatters), but when Assad's regime's end is near, they will abandon Assad like rats from a sinking ship. The question is where will they go: will they support the moderate Sunni insurgents or will they support the extremist Sunni insurgents (i.e., ISIS)? It depends on which offers the least worst fate for them. I say least worst because many will likely be slaughtered for having supported Assad no matter which side (moderate or extremist) ultimately prevails. That's where the game of chess comes into play. What moves can the West make that will likely produce the outcome the West prefers? Weakening Assad has the perverse effect of encouraging desertions by the Sunni conscripts, who are likely to leave Syria out of fear of being slaughtered by the insurgents; ISIS has released dozens of videos showing gruesome executions of fighters for Assad. Indeed, Assad's army has been cut almost in half as the result of desertions, draft dodging, and casualties. In other words, weakening Assad actually strengthens ISIS. On the other hand, if ISIS takes charge of the government after the Assad regime falls, it will make fighting ISIS much easier - the West, in particular America, is much better fighting a country than fighting a cause. Who wants to play this game?

We must fight them over there so we can fight them over here!

I agree with the first part, thinking that the second part will be far less necessary.

How was this not detected by the security apparatus? It was a reasonably large group, seven with transport and shelter.

If I intended to carry out such a thing, it would be necessary to keep out of sight of the pretty effective security systems. The best option is to flood. The anonymity of crowds. To try to keep on top of who is moving about, who is a security risk among the thousands of refugees would consume much of the resources of the state security.

So you manage to pull off an attack where the president is watching a football game.

So obviously there will be a need for tighter security. I understand that there are thousands of young men available to take the jobs.

If one wanted to enjoy black comedy, watching these folks pull the dick of western pieties would provide hours of amusement.

one of the attackers was a known extremist.

Sure. So the stretched to the limit security forces can't deal with them. To surveil someone is extraordinarily time and resource consuming. It was before the flood of refugees. It simply can't be done.

Occam's razor would indicate that the flood of refugees was/is a strategy to make this type of attack easier. The reaction of the bien pensants was as predictable as the sun rise. A few threats and whispered promises would move the millions from their places of desperation.

I can just imagine the Greek officials being asked by the French about the two they let through who were involved in this attack. Probably some microaggressions will be exchanged.

This is a disgusting mess. Two generations of exquisitely designed policy led to it, and the solution is almost as evil as what was done last night. France may not survive this, the France as we know it.

It's really hard to imagine anything being salvaged of Western Europe. People throughout the Western world are so demoralized and spiritually broken the majority can't resist even as they watch their homelands turn into some mashup of Yemen and the Congo. Even the few who try to fight this catastrophe, like Marine Le Pen, are attacked by the entirety of the national institutions. They dragged her before some kangaroo court on thought-crime charges. Liberals and "respectable" conservatives are incurably clueless about these things... They will still be singing kumbaya until the invader's blade pass through their larynx.

The only people happier than ISIS after this attack are the apocalyptic race war cranks. Basically the same as the guy who shot up the church in SC.

What is extremely dangerous about this situation is that the centre will not hold. There are a huge number of powerful and influential people who are fully supportive of actions that enabled this mess, and will respond by doubling down. There will be more security theatre that will be constantly overwhelmed by the migrant flows. More Brazilian electricians will be killed than radical imams who incite this nonsense.

All people want is to not see themselves or their friends blown up downtown Paris. There are many many really good reasons to not do what is necessary for it not to happen. Eventually the recalcitrant elites will either be forced to act of be replaced by someone willing.

The last time Europe was wracked by terrorist attacks it took the collapse of an empire for it to end. That took someone willing to not settle for anything except victory.

or, the refugees are legitimately fleeing war.

we get Shiites fleeing because Sunnis are massacring Shiites

we get Sunnis fleeing because Shiites are massacring Sunnis

they have been at it for a thousand years.

it is time for our Muslim neighbors to get their shit together and stop throwing their (human) garbage over our fence.

"Human garbage". I guess you're not looking for a position in the immigration system ...

The key take-away of this (and 9-11) is that drone and bombing campaigns of far away lands are not risk free. Harboring pockets of immigrants deeply sympathetic to the far away lands you are bombing seems pretty obviously risky. Open immigration policies without cultural assimilation can lead to a paralyzing effect on muscular foreign policy for this reason. Military policy is now hi-jacked by the implicit threat of terrorism within the country. It's possible open border types like this effect. It could be argued that these bombing and drone campaigns (not to mention Iraq war type adventures) have very little value.

Or drone and bombing overseas has tamped down the attackers, and without those, we'd have 3 attacks like this per year rather than one attack.

Greek TV news (ANT1 channel) just broadcast that two of the attackers arrived as refugees from Syria and crossed the Aegean. According to them French police already contacted the Greek authorities.

Because the attacker was found with his passport...which is weird. Why do they guys carry around their documents?

Same with Charlie attackers. Maybe its human habit. "Do I have my keys, wallet, phone...and AK?"

This act of random violence is so random, we don't even know where to begin. Here is where my roman nose is leading me: Following the lead of Tipper Gore we should immediately start looking at our rock and roll music, especially "Death Metal" bands like the ones who provoked the retaliatory attacks. The Khmer Rouge's ghost reappeared in front of a Cambodian restaurant in Paris yesterday, how apt a vengeance against the imperialists and their "Paris Peace Accords". The stadium attacks were likely done by hooligan soccer fans, likely English, in a fit of jealously over not being invited or some other triviality that only the British could get in a fuss over.

I think you should think more about the response, and not the origin. You have to make it socially unattractive to do this and you can do so in your response to the terrorist event.

What I mean is this.

The terrorist attacked YOUTH, YOUNG PEOPLE, the same audience that terrorist are seeking to recruit.

So, what you do is create a social movement making it very uncool to even consider terrorism, to associate with people who recruit, etc.

And,

The way you do that is

Have a music event, and theme song, participated in by leading music and cultural leaders who reach youth.

A We are the World Event and Song. And, to think a little deeper, consider how you would have the work or piece reach Arab youth.

Obviously, the focus of this event would be an event directly in response to the France terrorist incident. Not just a general let's hug each other event or song.

Hopefully it will do more to bring people together than anything.

As to the National Front, that may become a recruitment device for Arab terrorist in their attempt to polarize society and recruit from a reactive Arab population to the National Front. If you are thinking strategically, think about how you can Arab youth on your side, not on the other persons side.

DARE to stay off ISIS.

Are you fucking kidding?

HL, I dont understand what you are saying.

What I am saying is that you want to have young people--the target of this attack--express their opposition in ways that are viral. You want to do this in a way which also includes Arab youth as well, showing by social proof that youth are united in opposition to terrorism. To make it viral, you should include people youth--Arab and non-Arab--relate to, as well as their peers.

As to the National Front, they are in effect serving as a recruitment device for Arab terrorist groups, to the extent they can polarize the community, making Arabs outcasts, and thereby making recruitment easier.

In any game of strategy you want to look at why your opponent is doing something, what reaction you should have that won't give your opponent the second order effect--separating the Arab community--from the general community, and, if you are smart, you look at how you can turn their weapon against them by making the terrorists unwelcome members of the Arab community.

To get some sense of this, ask yourself what would have happened in the United States had George Wallace become president, or if segregation had been allowed to exist or had been promoted as a state policy, rather than had we not made racists the target or made racism politically incorrect or outside of a social norm.

It just sounds like a really hokey idea that teens will roll their eyes at like the D.A.R.E. program or are disingenuous like current efforts to jam diversity down people's throats.

HL, If you think that propaganda and efforts to stigmatize "the other" don't work, just ask yourself why ISIS has a propaganda arm.

Not sure you've quite nailed it Bill, but I think you're on to something.

http://www.buzzfeed.com/evanmcsan/white-house-mamas-dont-let-your-babies-grow-up-to-be-uninsur

http://www.buzzfeed.com/evanmcsan/obama-enlisted-youtube-personalities-for-final-health-care-e

What's Donald Trump's macroeconomic framework?

Winner: Mexican immigrants by a landslide.

And African Americans. Actually after 9/11 Chris Rock and others were already noting that at least now black people aren't the scariest.

Alternate theory about why this happened.

ISIL wants to be a nation state. They are having a huge problem with the fact that very few people want to live in their "paradise" and millions are fleeing. Making things worse the best educated and skilled are the most likely to flee.

Hypothesis: the purpose of this attack was to get Europe to slam the doors on refugees to stem the hemorrhaging of people from the Caliphate.

There are about 20,000 ISIL members and ten million refugees. I suggest we arm the refugees and send them back to sort out their own country.

ISIS has been out of the media for a while. Beheadings "over there" now just elicit yawns.

Also, I don't think the refugees are really useful as "resources" in a civil war. They require food and hospitals, etc. Better to send them to Europe, where Europe will pay for them.

J,

ISIS is hoping for a replay of Madrid 2004. The terrorists attack and Spain pulls out of Iraq. They probably won't get it. However, at another level this is payback for them. France is killing ISIS members so ISIS attacks France. From a payback / revenge perspective it doesn't matter if France gives up or not.

I think you're probably right. Also, that it won't work this time. The case of Spain was different, because it was an illegitimate war in the first place.

it was an illegitimate war in the first place.

Only in the mind of fools.

"Only in the mind of fools."

The war in Iraq was a mistake. A bad regime has been replaced with something worse.

"Only in the mind of fools."

The war in Iraq was a mistake. A bad regime has been replaced with something worse.

The mistake was thinking we could bomb a society from feudalism to modernity. We can't and so they have reverted from feudalism to something older and worse.

Here's a question:

How ridiculously naive are the authors of this blog to believe these "refugees" are like "Steve Jobs, Paula Abdul and Jerry Seinfeld's mother?"

Why don't you wait 20 or 50 years to see how many of them become CEOs or cultural icons.

NW,

There has been large scale Middle-Eastern / North African immigration into Europe for decades. The experiment has already been conducted. The answer is well known to anyone who looks at the facts.

"Why don’t you wait 20 or 50 years to see how many of them become CEOs or cultural icons."

Very few and far less than the number who become criminals, terrorists, Jihadis, welfare recipients, etc. Immigrants doesn't always work. Sometimes it fails rather badly.

>What will turn out to be the exact backgrounds and personal stories

The usual, no doubt. Presbyterians. Angry about the tepid action on climate change.

TOJ,

Presbyterians. The most dangerous people on earth. Actually they are. Ask the Japanese.

How so?

Most of the soldiers who went ashore at Iwo Jima were Presbyterians and probably most of the crew on the Enola Gay as well. My father-in-law, who manned a twenty-five pounder in the Italian campaign, was a Presbyterian.

NW,

jorgensen is correct. Stated succinctly, when the U.S. broke off from the UK in 1776, so did American churches. The COE (Anglicans) became Episcopalians (a bad lot). Scotch Methodists became Presbyterians. Of course, the actual history is more complicated...

The bottom line is that Presbyterians are Scots and Scotch-Irish. Scots are almost certainly the most brutal, aggressive, savage, competent, and militarily effective fighters in history. They match and exceed the Gurkhas and Germans. Of course, they are valiant fighters. However, they are also organized (by nature), well-trained and disciplined.

Beyond that, they bring certain ideas about war, that in America, are called Jacksonian. Basically, that wars should be fought with utter brutality until the enemy is annihilated or surrenders (or both). America in WWII was deeply Jacksonian.

Of course, Canada, Australia, and New Zealand were heavily settled by Scots and Scotch-Irish. It is not for naught that the UK has relied heavily on these countries for troops for centuries, and they have fought very well for the UK. If the UK was attacked tomorrow, ANZAKs and Canadians would again be on the front-lines (along with the redoubtable Gurkhas and Sikhs).

Only a minority of Americans these days are of Scotish or Sotch-Irish descent. However, anyone familiar with American history, knows that Scots have played a very disproportionate role in American history, specifically American military history.

The following is from an Email I sent.

People change over time... But not the Scotts... In the Iraq war, a Scottish platoon was fighting the forces of Motaqa al- Sadr in Basra. Fed up with a firefight that was going nowhere, the sergeant ordered his troops to stop firing, fix bayonets, and charge. The enemy fled in terror.

Note that Macaulay loved the Scotts (his family were Highlanders) and clearly admired them. He wrote

"And yet an enlightened and dispassionate observer would have found in the character and manners of this rude people something which might well excite admiration and a good hope. Their courage was what great exploits achieved in all the four quarters of the globe have since proved it to be. "

One of those four quarters would certainly be the United States where Scotts fought the British and gave our nation its freedom and then "four score and seven years" later saved the same republic (fighting on both sides of course).

"There was therefore even then evidence sufficient to justify the belief that no natural inferiority had kept the Celt far behind the Saxon. It might safely have been predicted that, if ever an efficient police should make it impossible for the Highlander to avenge his wrongs by violence and to supply his wants by rapine, if ever his faculties should be developed by the civilising influence of the Protestant religion and of the English language, if ever he should transfer to his country and to her lawful magistrates the affection and respect with which he had been taught to regard his own petty community and his own petty prince, the kingdom would obtain an immense accession of strength for all the purposes both of peace and of war. "

Very true of course as all the subsequent history demonstrated.

The lady I sent this Email to was Scotch-Irish. She responded with death threats. She was well armed and had a history using guns.

Caplan, still wants more Muslims in the West.

As long as he lives in his treasured all-white bubble, that it.

The good ones, i.e., most of them.

Most of them?

I guess that why they have created so many wonderfull societies.

Ohh, I forgot. We have to admire muslims when they migrate to the west. Because it is really hard to move from the poor world to the rich. That jus proves how good they are.

Have you ever met a Muslim, beyond ordering a falafel?

Quite a few. I wish them well in their own countries. I think my countrymen can make a good falafel, too.

Another question: What will this mean for the civil liberties of law-abiding residents of France (and elsewhere)?

Easy answer: More surveillance, more government control, less privacy.

Libertarians should be concerned about that. It is sadly ironic that the weaker the controls are at borders, the stronger the controls become within borders. Not sure if that's a good tradeoff.

Of course it's a good tradeoff--just think of the trillion dollar bills piling up on Parisian sidewalks! Soon France will become a libertarian utopia, just like Syria, Afghanistan, and Libya!

VD,

Libertarians would gladly trade Open Borders for a police state. They would whine about the police state but go insane over a hint of border control. It's what they really care about.

Here's a Graeme Wood article in Atlantic Monthly in March that provides details about ISIS that may surprise. http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2015/03/what-isis-really-wants/384980/. For example, they are apocalyptic in much the same way as fundamentalist Christians, and like fundamentalist Christians, believe the apocalypse will occur upon the second coming of Jesus. Yes, that Jesus. They are also territorial (thus, the caliphate); hence, unlike al Qaeda, expanding and preserving conquered territory is paramount - their goal is to draw the apostates to them in Syria for the End of Days. According to Wood's description of ISIS, true believers want to go to Syria in anticipation of the Final Days not go to France or the U.S. or other places to inflict violence and mayhem - the terrorists in France most likely couldn't get to Syria because their passports had been revoked, not because they were sent there to perpetrate acts of terrorism. Based on Woods' assessment, the response to the terrorism in France should be very different than the response that is likely.

One terrorist had an Egyptian passport; another had a Syrian passport.

France's response to the attack in France, our response, can be based on emotion or knowledge and reason. I'm not optimistic. I understand the emotional response, but it's a response that likely will make matters worse. And no, I don't believe there's any way to reason with these people; they are apocalyptic, and for them death is their reward. I will repeat that they succeed, they attract the like-minded, only because of the caliphate, without which they offer nothing.

Ergo, all Egyptians and Syrians are terrorists, right?

Just go to Egypt, and you will learn.

Yeah, youre right. Thats what he said.

And youre also right about egypt. It is a wonderfull democratic society for gays and jews and christians and hindus and women and.....

It's not a bad place. Could be better.

It's certainly a better place for minorities than living among American Christians. We need to stop Christianity. Get it or if our schools and governments. But, we also need to be respectful of Islam and not judge the religion for widespread support of female genital mutilation, honor killings, child brides, and terrorism. Let's stay focused on the homegrown Christian fanatics who want the ten commandments in courthouses.

>the response to the terrorism in France should be very different than the response that is likely.

The response that is likely is what happened after Charlie Hebdo. Delusional eloi join hands and sing kumbaya with "moderate" muslims who explain that this is the fault of evil French nationalists, and more money is needed for social programs to benefit Muslims.

I guess eventually the fact that France now has multiple lethal terrorist attacks per year will eventually become background noise. Ho-Hum, a few hundred more deaths, I guess we'll have to open the borders even more and give the vibrants even more welfare.

"apocalyptic in much the same way as fundamentalist Christians"

Except they want to cut off your head, where a "fundamentalist christian" is likely to invite you to their church or collect soup cans for the poor. It's such a ridiculous and childish comparison.

And defend that Israel must be supported so it is around to be crushed by the Antichrist, which may or may not be the pope. Yes, very sane and should help to choose America's foreign policy.

Yes, Armageddonists are very sensible people.

Except that they vote for governments with armies with far more than knives and swords or even AKs.

Hopefully this proves to be a rare event.

Very rare.

I can't think of any other example of islamic terrorism. I guess it because it is the religion of peace. Hence there is no violence, just like they dont eat piggs.

Ohh, wait. The europeans have prevented several terrorist attacks in europe.

Why do you hope that? ISIS is just punching up. Every attack levels the playing field of social justice more and more. If we're lucky, we'll see militarized of the homegrown radicals such as we've seen at Yale.

From the Atlantic:

"Social scientists argue about the nature and impact of the “social conditions” in question, but few would question the essential point that violence, however personalized or idiosyncratic its expression, is primarily rooted in historical structures or social relationships, not individuals, still less their “pathological” mindsets."

http://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2015/06/terrorism-isis-motive/395351/

OK, some writer for The Atlantic is a knucklehead acting as the conduit for some piece of fatuous nonsense peddled by sociologists. Your point is what?

Which part do you disagree with?

The passage form the Atlantic wins the prize for the stupidest thing I have read this week.

NW,

Wow, if we imposed Louisiana's laws and structure on Vermont we would have Louisiana's crime rate up north? Really? If we imposed Vermont's laws and structure on Louisiana, we would have Vermont's crime rate down south? Really? America's states have remarkably similar laws and economic structures and remarkably different results.

People matter. The world is not Vermont.

You missed the part about "social relationships", which are not easily brought across borders en masse.

You're right. ISIS is just punching up. Just fighting for social justice. And we need to respect that. Besides, we already have our own radical religious folks to deal with. Honor killings pfft, we have Americans that believe in displaying the ten commandments on public property.

Reality rudely intrudes on leftist delusions (open borders, multiculturalism, "religion of peace", "diplomatic solution", etc. etc. etc.).

Nothing is monolithic in the real world. It is complex.

There are peaceful Muslims. Diplomatic solutions will eventually be found, together with military approaches.

"Nothing is monolithic in the real world."

Except leftist dogma, especially "political correctness".

Yes, PCists agree on so much. They are so monolithic.

It is so hard to frame a critique in respectful language. Why bother when you can just insult people?

One thing we can all agree on is that wow people had it coming. From Yale to Paris, and I'd me and Nathan W. have anything to do with it, people week be forced to learn that is okay for marginalized people to harm white people. That's social justice.

I say that the biggest danger is this will lead to open season on Mosques in southern Europe.

Comments for this post are closed