Why can’t Europe police terrorism better?

What Europe does not have is any cross-national agency with the power to carry out its own investigation and make its own arrests.

This means that cross-border policing in the European Union has big holes. It depends heavily on informal cooperation rather than formal institutions with independent authority. Sometimes this works reasonably well. Sometimes this works particularly badly. Belgium is a notorious problem case, because its policing arrangements are heavily localized. In the past, many Belgian policing forces have had difficulty cooperating with each other, let alone with other European forces.

That is from Henry Farrell, there are other points at the link.  Here is one bit more:

To take a different example, immigration and refugees present an even bigger and more visible set of challenges to the E.U. than terrorism, yet the E.U. has been unable to agree on reforms that might expand the budget and powers of FRONTEX, the E.U. agency charged with coordinating border control. Creating a European FBI-style institution would be an even bigger lift.

Keep this in mind the next time you are tempted to believe that the EU is doing everything possible to manage the refugees crisis well.


Sure. What is needed is an exquisitely trained German paramilitary police force with transnational powers.

I kid. But not really. It isn't the police, it is an impossible situation where a long series of stupid decisions have led to the nurturing and harboring of elements that do this type of thing.

I get the impression that it the choice is between a police state and limited Muslim immigration, almost everyone would go for the police state.

Everyone? The voters clearly would prefer to limit immigration. The voters are deserting the traditional parties for the neo-Fascists because of immigration. The *governments* of the West, especially Europe, are happier with a police state and more Muslim immigration. So France suspended the normal rule of law, imposed a state of emergency, is changing the Constitution and so on. All to deal with the problems of unlimited immigration.

Meanwhile the National Front is waiting for its turn in office.

Since when do the Vlamms Belang, UKIP, the True Finns, or Alternative for Germany, qualify as neo-Fascist? Why do the Sweden Democrats, the Austrian Freedom Party, and the National Front qualify as 'neo-fascist' any more than Italia. Bene Comune qualifies as 'neo-Stalinist'? Have any of these organizations called for the destruction of parliamentary institutions?

It's pretty clear that there are some neo-fascist elements in these parties, but I think the extent can be exaggerated by both sides. Seeing AfD take 24% in one of three state elections, it seems that some neo-Nazis believe that they are on the cusp of breaking into widespread legitimacy.

In exaggerating the view that higher voting for these parties represents the entry of neo-fascists into the maintream, there are two risks: a) neo-fascists will incorrectly judge the underlying level of support, mistaking a pro-caution anti-immigrant vote as support for the whole kit and kaboodle of neo-fascism, and this may lead them into doing some crazy things, and b) anti-facists may overestimate the risk and dangerously support a crackdown which could drive less extremist types into their hands.

Both are roughly analogous with what one might say about terrorist risks emanating from within certain segments of Islamic communities these days (a small success emboldens them, and an overresponse leads other into their arms). I imagine there are rather smart people among the neo-fascists who are well aware of such thinking, and apply it in the opposite direction, intentionally infaming Muslims in order to goad on sufficient radicalization and terrorist activity with the objective of drawing more into their camp.

One may only speculate as to what various sub sub sub segments might envision as the desired ultimate trajectory, were they to succeed in stimulating a cyclical descent into radicalization. I don't see why roughly similar thinking should not be applied to radical extremists among both neo-fascists and Islamic terrorists.

If the major parties had allowed immigration to be an issue, there might not be a pool of disgruntled voters for the fascists to latch onto.

We should not have made immigration a taboo issue, either.

"I get the impression that it the choice is between a police state and limited Muslim immigration, almost everyone would go for the police state."

I don't get that impression, but I guess that I don't spend as much time around bigots.

But that is what Tyler is describing. After the Paris attacks the authorities were saying that they were unable to keep up with the various people of interest, and there was some German official who hinted at the enormous amounts of resources required to follow one suspicious person at all times.

There is going to be a certain amount of this stuff no matter what, but high levels of Muslim immigration over time has created this situation. Free movement across the borders is already being constrained. The solution always ends up being more power and resources to the police.

How about choosing to limit immigration? Then maybe the police could keep up?

I think Europe is generally very prone to limited immigration, in particular considering that the EU economy has not yet even remotely fully digested the labour forces of more recent additions to the club.

However, things can and generally do change, at least for the short term, when crisis strikes. I'm inclined to view the crisis as a refugee crisis, others view the crisis as the invasion of pedophile rapist global dominationist jihadis. I'll leave it to you to determine which is the more rational view.

For practical purposes though, even in a crisis situation, the optimal response if presumably not infinite tolerance for incoming populations. Something less than infinite, something more than zero.

-some German official who hinted at the enormous amounts of resources required to follow one suspicious person at all times-

Dollars to donuts that he was from the East.
That is not how you do investigations!

Given that (albeit false) chose, wouldn't the bigots limit Muslim immigration, over accepting a police state?

If you want diversity, you need a centralized police state to enforce goodthink, punish wrongthink, and put the beatdown on the inevitable social strife.

Multicultural states must be ruled by force and if that weakens they disintegrate like Yugoslavia or the Ottoman Empire.

The conflict in former Yugoslavia dates back to the 12th century, and the Ottoman Empire collapsed because they were on the losing side of WWI.

"...and the Ottoman Empire collapsed because they were on the losing side of WWI."

No, that's not true. The Ottoman Empire was labeled as the Sick Man of Europe during the Crimea war in the 1850's. The empire finally dissolved after WW1, but the empire was decrepit by that point.



I'm not strictly convinced. It looks rather to me like two imperialist powers (Russia and England) putting on a show of much sympathy and care while they went about designing plans (an out of my butt statement) to divvy up the Ottomans upon their eventual decline.

The Ottoman Empire on the eve of WW I made the Roman Empire in 450 AD look healthy by comaprison.

"If you want diversity, you need ..."

Actually even that statement is too PC. The problem isn't "diversity" per se. The root problem are Muslim populations with a propensity to become radical Jihadists. The US has significant numbers of hispanic illegal immigrants. This puts downward wage pressure on low skilled immigrants, but it doesn't lead to terrorism.

It's certainly true that the immigration of mestizos from Mexico is not as dangerous as the Islamic immigration into Europe. But the influx from Mexico still has bad long-term consequences. Mexican hsitory has been very bloody (more than a million killed in the Mexican Revolution) and today Mexico is close to becoming a failed state with some of the most violent cities in the world.

The happiest and best-run societies in the world are highly homogenous nations like the Nordic nations and Japan.

Of course the US is not going to be like Japan or Iceland. We already have a great deal of diversity the managing of which is a constant political and social problem with every group feeling that it is being treated unjustly. We need more diversity like we need a hole in the head.

Mexico isn't a good example. Their instability is caused primarily, if not entirely, by U.S. drug policy.

Hong Kong and Singapore are pretty multicultural and peaceful. Same goes for Malaysia.

The scneario you portray is only likely if one group has an agenda to whip up violence and others take the bait. Let's not go there.

Hong Kong is mostly Han Chinese. Both HK and Singapore are ruled by authoritarian regimes. QED.

"The happiest and best-run societies in the world are highly homogenous nations like the Nordic nations and Japan"

How the fuck would you know?




Australia has an excellent immigration policy

Their instability is caused primarily, if not entirely, by U.S. drug policy.

No, their instability is caused by their own social and institutional defects, defects which are manifest in most Latin American societies, whether they're on drug trade routes or not.

Jason - Mexico has a very violent history. Do you know anythoing about the Mexican Revolution? It was not caused by US cocaine consumption.

Nathan - Singapore had violent anti-Chinese riots at one time. Lee Kuan Yew always said that democracy could not work in Singapore and that it reqiuired the rule of an autocrat such as himself to be stable. Lee was right about democracy amd multiculturalism. Democracy tends to exacerbate internal conflict so while it works fine in a very homogeneous society such as Iceland it cannot work in a place like Singapore.

Hong Kong is overwhelmingly Han Chinese. It is also not democratic but under the authority of a powerful government which does not hesitate to use brutality on a massive scale.

Nathan - The scenario which you view as not so likely is what nearly always happens in history. Even on the little island of Guadacanal two very closely related Melanesian tribes have been fighting one another. Humans are highly prone to group conflict.

Natha - Malaysia has very strong discrimination against ethnic Chinese. It is very difficult for ethnic Chinese to obtain government jobs or admittance to universities. If you think that the ethnic Chinese don't resent that you are very mistaken.

>Keep this in mind the next time you are tempted to believe that the EU is doing everything possible to manage the refugees crisis well.

If we don't receive magic ponies in the mail by the end of the week keep that in mind if you are tempted to believe that the government cares about our happiness.

Come on, that is a silly comment. Maybe the refugees crisis is impossible to manage at all, and those who thought it was are blitheringly stupid. You don't go knocking over even badly functioning States all along your southern periphery and expect good things. Even Putin knew that.

it's manageable. The Czech republic and Hungary are managing it; just don't let them in. If they make it to your country deport them. If you welcome them, don't expect good results down the road

This works because it has a good feedback: if you know you won't be able to stay, you don't come.

This is why the USA has the Haitian boat people policy, as does Australia.

At some point it even becomes humanitarian to discourage dangerous attempts to cross the sea.

Yeah. Hayek had something to say about clear rules of the road being preferable to smooshy vague feel good policies.

I've been listening to NPR lately, because it's a good source for knowing what CBS will be saying in a few months. 2015 was a relentless campaign of shaming selfish Europeans for maybe not wanting to invite in a million refugees.

Now NPR is all like: things are going wrong. Reasons unclear. No one could have predicted this. Unrelated- fascists on the rise.

Big-hearted people created this mess by trying to ram it down the throats of a reluctant populace. The clear messages from Australia have obviously been a superior humanitarian course.

"I’ve been listening to NPR lately, because it’s a good source for knowing what CBS will be saying in a few months."

LOL, Well I think they're feedback loop is a little quicker than months, but yes this is largely correct.


It's only impossible if you don't want to try. A lot of people want to try, and the most recent poll I saw said that support for the refugee response has ticked up from 47% to 53% in Germany (sorry, I forget the source).

Yeah, Nathan- ticked up to which response? The policy has changed in the last 6 months.

In any case, there are limits to what one can actually try to do. I am asking for your opinion here- how many refugees/year can Germany take in? If your answer is going to be, "I don't know," then one might want to reconsider what Derek is saying about false optimism.

53% approval for the initial policy, with approval for the initial policy rising after introducing restructions.

A million in the first year is a lot, but Syria will be empty long before it would be unmanageable. I imagine flows will be well into the hundreds of thousands a year until the conflcit is over.

I don't see why I should have to give a specific number. I'm not integrated into the German response teams who can provide credible estimates of what they can handle. This is not a long-term solution, it is a response to a specific crisis. Once the crisis is over, things will return to normal minimum requirements for refugee applications, and that means that basically none of them get as far as Germany, except perhaps some who can fly in on a legitimate visa and then claim asylum on the basis of political persecuation.

You do realize only half of the migrants, of whom 70% are men, are actually Syrian.

How many terrorist cells is the FBI capturing?

Could the Europeans change their labor markets and housing policies to encourage full employment and reduce instances of migrants forming ghettos and as a result reduce demand for terror?

Not that they'd ever actually implement policies like that.

I think "full employment" is a fool's errand in a capitalist economy, but it would be good if they could reduce ghettoization while respecting the rights of individuals to live where they choose.

Assimilation means outmarriage. European men and women are not going to marry Arab and African Muslims at any substantial rate. Why would they?

"but it would be good if they could reduce ghettoization while respecting the rights of individuals to live where they choose".

I'm not convinced they have a "right to live where they choose".

When we relocated Vietnamese refugees to the US in the mid-70's, we scattered them all over the country and assigned them to church and community group sponsors in every town and city where they were resettled. I suppose they had the subsequent ability to live where they chose, but there was no center of Vietnamese population in which to congregate.

If I recall correctly there were tens of thousands, not millions, they were Vietnamese not Muslims, and the US even today would be an easier place to disperse everyone than Europe. But we thought about integration, and followed an approach that turned out reasonably well for everyone.

It's incredibly naive to think that Vietnamese people are like Middle Easterners or North Africans. They're totally different.

Per Wiki, about 150,000 in 75-77, 280,000 78-82, 530,000 81-2000. Over 50% in California and Texas, many concentrating after initial dispersal.

"According to a study by the Manhattan Institute in 2008, Vietnamese Americans are among the most assimilated immigrant groups in the United States.[19] While their rates of cultural and economic assimilation were unexceptional compared to other groups (perhaps due to language differences between English and Vietnamese), their rates of civic assimilation were the highest among all the large immigrant groups.["

Is it known how many of the Vienamese in America are Chinese Vietnamese?

Their youth unemployment over all is in the 20-30% range. It can be up to 50% in the ethnic ghettoes. That doesn't sound like a fools errand trying to get them down to US levels to me.

How many Muslims are there in the Eu versus the U.S. and what are their respective backgrounds?

Seems like one thing they could do fairly easily is adopt something like the Section 8 housing voucher system and its strategy of dispersing beneficiaries throughout the community rather than concentrating them in one or a few neighborhoods. Might encourage a bit more assimilation, at least among wards of the state.

Some would cry foul, but in my mind it's an obviously excellent idea. If they don't like the choice being made for them of where they will be located, then they are 100% free to get a job (ignoring discrimination in the job market).

I´d say Europeans have been fighting terrorism exceptionally well, specially compared to decades past.


Tyler, I'll bet you never thought that your well-reasoned, deeply considered posts could find such a thoughtful audience. Maybe that's because The European are weak leftists who love Muslim terrorists.

Also: at what point does everyone make the collective decision to just drag comment sections into the street and set them on fire? Now? Or, just, it's all good: The People need to be heard?

Its not everyone , just a couple of loony Drumpkopfs regurgitating the same drivel again and again.

Maybe that’s because The European are weak leftists who love Muslim terrorists.

Well yes JAMRC is a troll and yet .....

We know this attack will be followed by the usual token condemnation of the terrorism, a promise to do nothing and a call to ensure that the voters remain quiet and don't do anything. Every single terrorist attack is followed by exactly the same speech pointing out the problem isn't them, it is us. We need to accept it because the government won't do anything.

Presumably they want us to remain quiet until it is our turn to be slaughtered.

So yes, while it is stupid to say that the Europeans are weak leftists who love Muslim terrorists, they are certainly weak leftists who have nothing but contempt for us. Not just Europeans either.

Its a very difficult problem to solve, because its not just crazy people, but its not some huge percentage either.

If Muslims were just like the Amish - weirdly dresses and eccentric but pacifist, no one would care that much.

The West also embraces freedom of religion, so its very hard to go against the entire religion.

Sometimes there is no really good solution. Not to mention the enemy is actively hoping we will react in a way for them to force their less enthusiastic coreligionists to "pick a side."

If it remains at some steady state or tapers off, we'll just muddle through.

So basically we are agreement. Like Ned Flanders' parents, our elites have tried nothing and now are fresh out of ideas.

The solution is for them to get out of the way and allow someone who will solve this problem to get on with it. They are not part of the solution then they are part of the problem. Thus the voters are turning to alternatives.

Arabs are genetically clannish and low trust. They have zero track record of integrating into modern societies. They also don't have have the IQ to participate in a modern economy.

In addition, the terrorist have a pretty accurate view of their faith. Islam is the religion of a desert bandit child rapist and his nomad raiders, and it shows.

Support for Islamism is widespread in the Muslim community:


If Muslims were expelled from the West and barred from immigrating here the terrorism problem would go away. So would the low level terror of crime and ghettoization they have brought with them. It would also improve governmental budgets, boosting the economy and making the obligations of the welfare state more affordable. This is the obvious common sense solution, only leftism is stopping it. Leftists welcome immigrants because they vote for leftists, and through this leftists gain power over their fellow citizens. Immigration also allows the elite to impoverish the middle class to their own benefit.

"No one is stopping anyone from investing their own money and efforts to open their own media outlets."

Speech is tightly controlled both by both governmental law and the social/economic pressure of the existing elite. Anyone truly challenging the order is persecuted both public and private. Immigration is pursued because it increases the power the elite over the people, and anyone that seriously challenges that elite consensus of impoverishment and terror is in for a world of hurt.

Never been to Michigan, have you?

Is there actually a single case of a Muslim raised in a US Muslim community being a suicide bomber?

Most Muslims are not Arab, right? Haven't Muslims integrated pretty well in the U.S.?

'Keep this in mind the next time you are tempted to believe that the EU is doing everything possible to manage the refugees crisis well.'

Why would anyone be tempted to believe that? Especially anyone actually living in the EU?

Sometimes, the straw being used to stuff the narrative is just too obvious to be credible, to be honest.

On the other hand, American attempts to use any terrorist attack anywhere in the world to advance American political perspectives is par for the course. I'm sure Trump had a few more words to add about how well America can handle not only refugees, but 'those people' too - yep, I see the Post has the expected reporting (with Cruz adding his own version in another front page headline, I see) - https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/post-nation/wp/2016/03/22/why-security-experts-called-donald-trumps-response-to-the-belgium-attacks-preposterous/

A number of member states of the EU faced decades of terrorist attacks (ETA, IRA, some crazy Corsicans, a group of dedicated German terrorists, Italian criminals - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Train_904_bombing, etc.), seemingly without any need to turn into today's Festung America.

One would typically believe that a libertarian web site would understand that freedom comes with costs. EU social welfare states do, regardless of repeated American suggestions that they need to follow the American model, and create an effective surveillance state beyond the reach of any democratic oversight, with a chief executive able to order the death of anyone, including American citizens, at any time anywhere outside (well, for now) of the U.S., using a secret list.

A number of member states of the EU faced decades of terrorist attacks (ETA, IRA, some crazy Corsicans, a group of dedicated German terrorists, Italian criminals

Well yes and no. The Italians never caught anyone and most of their terrorists are still at large, believed to be safely tenured. The Spanish and the French both ran death squads. They probably tortured. The British did not torture in the technical sense, but the EU Courts did find their Five Techniques - wall-standing, hooding, subjection to noise, deprivation of sleep, and deprivation of food and drink - while not technically torture, did constitute degrading treatment.

"American attempts to use any terrorist attack anywhere in the world to advance American political perspectives is par for the course"

This only applies to one of two political camps. I was surprised to read a GWB quote the other day, which sounds astonishly similar to what Obama is saying these days: On Sept. 20, 2001, he labeled al-Qaeda “a fringe movement that perverts the peaceful teachings of Islam,” declaring, “The enemy of America is not our many Muslim friends. … Our enemy is a radical network of terrorists.”

The following article more generally discusses how inflammatory rhetoric broadly targeting groups instead of discerning specifically the sub-segment responsible for the activity can lead to further inflamed terrorism: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/monkey-cage/wp/2015/11/30/want-to-help-the-islamic-state-recruit-treat-all-muslims-as-potential-terrorists/. It's a quick and easy read.

Americans pay attention to attacks in Europe because we face the same exact enemy.

I also doubt Europe was laissez-faire about domestic terrorism - France has pretty serious laws, for example, far earlier than the USA about terrorism.

America also faced the 60s radicals: see Bill Ayers.

As usual, Europeans are worried about fascism in America.

Funny how Europeans are always worried about fascism in America whereas it was in Europe that fascism stared and actually came to power.

Fascism, as Tom Wolfe once reported, is forever descending upon the United States, but somehow it always lands on Europe

The problem is, no one is sure exactly why we need comments. That leads to doubt about why we need TRUMP!!!!!!

Also: so, humans with families are dead? Did anyone hear about this? Eh, I'm sure it's fine. Carry on with the screeching you brought in with you.

Sort of like the screeching we hear about gun control after a mass shooting, eh?

"Keep this in mind the next time you are tempted to believe that the EU is doing everything possible to manage the refugees crisis well."

Who is tempted to believe that the Europeans are handling the influx of refugees well? Except from those responsible and their political auxiliaries, the unanimous view seems to be that it's FUBAR through and through.


"The Politbarometer poll found approval for Merkel's "open-door" refugee policy, which saw more than 1 million people stream into Germany last year, rose by six percentage points to 53 percent in March." http://news.yahoo.com/germanys-merkel-sees-uptick-approval-refugee-policy-influx-141910488.html;_ylt=A0SO81XBkvJW_9AAtgBXNyoA;_ylu=X3oDMTEydDJkdTRnBGNvbG8DZ3ExBHBvcwMxBHZ0aWQDQjE3MjNfMQRzZWMDc2M-

Was that after she said they had to go home when the war was over?

"Was that after she said they had to go home when the war was over?"

Does it matter? Does anyone believe that the current refugees will actually be sent home? Indeed, German policy hasn't actually stopped the current inflow. And the most recent block of refugees will bring in millions of additional relatives over the next couple of decades. The Left has become ideologically committed to bringing in refugees. I don't imagine the process will stop unless it becomes a disaster.

Well, if a commitment to helping those who flee war is ideological, then perhaps you could consider it as ideological. Religious, even. A very Christian thing to do. In upholding the roots of Western civilization, including our Christian heritage, how could we do otherwise? Of course, practical considerations proportional to the size of the crisis should not be exlcuded from the calculus. Europe cannot welcome an infinite number of refugees. Certainly more than zero.

Interpol is a formal organization. It happens to be somewhat eurocentric. It even has some funding.

The phrase "never let a good crisis go to waste" has become far too influential. Everybody with something to sell, from the European ideal of the "ever closer union" to Donald Trump, is claiming that what they have to sell will fix whatever the current crisis is. Meanwhile some other EU supporters are claiming that the current system is exactly what we need and exactly why the UK should not vote for Brexit - see "The UK will be absenting itself from having access to the kind of well developed arrangements that currently exist and have developed over the last 40 years," in http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-35524017

The European Union is a failed state (as is Belgium). Why a libertarian would be so eager to point to a lack of centralization of power as a major problem is puzzling.

Oh looky: messy, dangerous contingencies call for greater government cohesion and oversight, and probably further restricting border entry! What's the libertarian solution to this? Will Bryan Caplan just house all the refugees and potential terrorists in on his seastead until they can be sorted out?

Caplan doesn't seem to recognize it, but the libertarian solution is to have an immigrant price that accounts for the attributes of the immigrant and the costs and benefits imposed on the citizens granting the immigration visa. Things that might raise the price would include being from Syria, being uneducated, being near retirement, or having an expensive disability. Things that might lower the price include being at the start of a lucrative career (say a young medical doctor), speaking the local language fluently, or having special skills or talents.

If American green cards cost $500k each, we'd get a different type of immigrant. We might even get more immigration (though we could use the price to control this), but I bet we wouldn't have one tenth the trouble.

Giving away immigration slots for free, while imposing obligations on the rest of the people in the country, is not a libertarian solution. That it's taken over the libertarian talking heads has much to do with libertarianism's rejection by many people who might otherwise be sympathetic.

That's not a bad idea. It would be a system to limit immigration but not end it, which is the true compromise and you provide a method whereby quantity can be adjusted as needed.

Nice idea, but it seems like if anything, it's the low skilled, low education immigration that libertarians want most of all. I doubt even Trumpers really object to well spoken, family oriented, educated immigrant doctors. It's the masses of low skill, low education immigration where the population and the elites/libertarians are really at odds.

I think they're wrong about this because they aren't measuring cost and benefit correctly. They also don't recognize that we are already setting a price. Zero is a price. And it doesn't seem like a very sensible one.

It should be a second price auction with the price starting high and immigrants bidding (with committed cash). Once all of the slots have been sold, then all the bidders pay the lowest accepted bid price. Any high bidders would have the difference between the lowest accepted bid and their bid refunded. Immigrants could raise the cash through third party lenders that would take on the risk.

I'd want to have price discrimination, but yes, some sort of auction seems appropriate. Perhaps category quotas with separate auctions?

"I’d want to have price discrimination..."

That would inevitably lead to cries about preferencing the rich and conversely horror stories of how some poor immigrant spent vastly more money because he had to bid early and the system/lenders abused him.

"Perhaps category quotas with separate auctions?"

That would probably be a pragmatic compromise.

If you do an honest accounting of costs and benefits, you have to favor high-earning immigrants over low-earning immigrants, and you have to think about lifetime earnings so age is important.

Sure, but a second price auction will strongly preference for immigrants who can access capital. And theoretically, those same immigrants will have higher lifetime earnings.

Or we could go the Canadian route and blatantly cherry pick immigrants based upon our national desires.

I find the notion of auctioning off visas or passports to be inherently offensive based on several principles.

But the idea of quotas and separate auctions seems like a more tolerable middle ground, as much as I find national quotas to be troublesome.

The only type of national quotas that seem basically ethically defensible to me are in working holday maker visas (basically someone who wants to travel in the country, and enjoys access to the labour market to fund their travels), where reciprocity sees many countries basing their quotas on the size of the quota in the opposite direction.

After years of laissez faire immigration, there is a fifth column in France and Belgium. Many no-go areas in the Paris banlieue are permeated with crime and islamism. If you magically removed all the Muslims in France crime would drop 75%. It's probably too late , the country has been ruined by immigration. There is a political correctness in the country which enforces you can never criticize Islam.

Houellebeck's "Submission" is prescient.

Exactly. Better cross-border policing isn't going to help when police are afraid or unable to enter local neighborhooda. I read yesterday that the Belgian government has given up trying to collect taxes in Mollenbeek.

We are seeing social disintegration, and a steady transformation into a new culture.

Europe's demographic future lies with Africa and the Middle East. There's no escaping it now barring a violent resort to mass deportations.

Since when does the government have to enter an area to collect taxes? If you have unpaid taxes and don't answer you mail, don't they generally just garnish from accounts or block accounts outright until you fix the problem? Anyways, I thought the storyline was that they were all welfare scum, in which case there are no taxes being paid in the first place. You're gonna have to work out some inconsistencies in the various strar grasping going on to portray this short-term refugee crisis as some excuse to violently oppose non-white immigration.

"We are seeing social disintegration, and a steady transformation into a new culture."

How so? Which disintegration? Which new culture?

"Europe’s demographic future lies with Africa and the Middle East. "

As did it always. Without Africa and the Middle East, Europe would remain unpopulated. That's where y'alls came from in the first place, no?

As you acknowledge, they are overwhelmingly net tax consumers, from the time they get here until the time they die. This is not sustainable and never should have been allowed to happen.

That's not how I intended it to be read. I'm pointing out the inconsistency in the position that tax collection is a problem, whereas people like yourself like to portray them as a bunch of welfare bumbs.

Yeah, accepting refugees costs money upfront. Duh. How much of a contribution they ultimately make to the economy relies on how easily they can access economic opportunity.

They can't easily access economic opportunity because most of them are low IQ, low marriage-market value, and from an alien culture.

If Europe fought terror as hard as the Sunni countries do (internally)) they might see results.

You mean the same sunni countries that are the chief financers and indoctrinators for Islamic State et al?

Bombing weddings could help to reduce the Muslim birth rate.

Or, we could work to ensure that they have access to higher education and the labour market, which tends to reduce family size.

And increase terrorism!

I don't think that's reading the statistics correctly (assuming you're connecting the education-radicalization connection). More highly educated might be more targeted for radicalization, or might run into identity issues in the face of a rather foreignish sort of education which leads some very small minority to be somewhat more prone to radicalization. A education -> radicalization link seems to be jumping the gun.

If recruiters are sensible, I imagine they would target the educated for radicalization rather more so than the uneducated. Among other things, they can cross borders more easily to relocate to another country and have more skills which can be of use to the organization.

One thing that seems to be striking me as obvious in recent days, in particular after that bit about engineers and jihadism, is that it may not be remotely such a self-selected organic sort of process as many might imagine. In seeking to establish a terrorist cell, the benefits of seeking to recruit the highly educated seems pretty sensible. A likely vector is that you leave home when you go to university, which provides an opportunity for some recruiters to provide the potential recruit with a new and ready made social circle, within which he is slowly indoctrinated.

Like Libya? Turkey?

Well thanks to Hillary and oil-greedy EU countries no ;)

One problem is that each new bout of massive muslim societal failure only results in more muslims showing up in western countries where by and large they cannot compete on the open market and retreat into welfare dependency and crime (while feeling self righteous about it).

The west (especially the EU) is collectively training muslim societies that the price of failure at home is a place on the welfare rolls of a European country that their children will grow up hating.

That's the cycle that needs to be broken (hint: it won't be broken by increasing in-migration from muslim societies).

Those societal faliures mostly wouldn't have occurred if it weren't for Western meddling in the past.

The policy of removing strongmen endorsed by some Western countries in recent years, and then being surprised when it all turns to chaos, seems like something we could learn from, namely, stop meddling in their internal politics.

By and large, countries which actually make excplicit efforts to welcome newcomers into their economy and society to not have problems with low access to jobs, welfare dependency or crime in relation to Muslims. However, if they are excluded from labour markets, we should not be surprised if they are employed less often, on welfare more often, and in some cases turn to crime.

Let's break the cycle. We can stop interfering in the internal politics of foreign countries, accept that marginal change is better than completely destroying established political orders, and work towards playing a more constructive role in ensuring that peace and development are achieved - these would all reduce the numbers of those who flee war, and probably fewer would hold such negative attitudes towards the West.

Who are these countries that have welcomed NAMs and had it all work out? Canada, as you've noted many times, has a restrictive immigration policy that only lets in high IQ people. As a country it also has few NAMs relative to many other western countries, and what NAMs it has had to go through that points system to self select for high IQ. It is protected by oceans and the entire territory of the USA from the kind of mass low IQ peasant immigration Europe and America have had to deal with.

The situation is very simple. Genetics matters. NAMs have been genetics. You take people with bad genes into your society and bad things happen. Nobody has been able to turn mass quantities of low IQ people into productive first world citizens.

I tried to look it up a few times and could never find the answer. What does "NAM" mean?

Canada doesn't select for IQ. It selects for language skills and education, both of which are largely a function of privileged access to resources in their home countries.

"Canada doesn’t select for IQ. It selects for language skills and education"

Language skills and education are a proxy for IQ.

"both of which are largely a function of privileged access to resources in their home countries."

Canada isn't selecting for the lazy, rich. They are selecting for those with important skill sets.

Has Europe or the US intervened in Morocco lately?

Because the Belgian bombers have been of Moroccan descent.

Also, you need to be self-aware that some of these countries are essentially full of sectarian strife with or without us.

The West didn't create Shia-Sunni.

Things were pretty stable under the Ottomans. After WWI, there was never really much of a chance to organically develop bottom-up political systems due to explicit colonization (WWI-WWII era) and, in the Cold War era, much interference to sustain whichever strongmen were able to maintain order and signal a credible willingness to work with one power or the other.

The point of Morocco is obviously relevant in looking at the present case. Most of the hysteria seems to be relating to the refugees. It seems sensible to treat these as different issues, although the presence of violent extremism is relevant to both cases. Loosely, I understand that in Morocco religious authorities are essentially subjugated by the authority of the king, in order to neutralize their ability to influence the legal or constitutional order, and, if I remember correctly from a couple translations, the king basically has formally-sanctioned plants in most of the structures of the radical schools existing in Morocco. It's not clear to me that the Moroccan origins of the perpetrator are of specific relevance, as there are linkages between extremist elements which transcend borders. However, it does speak to the potential for radicalization among newcomers - I think lessons have been learned and things might be more sensible in the future (optimistic outlook).

Riiiiight. Nothing to do with an explicit policy of allowing...only...the worst elements of every third world society from entering. That is what you get, after all, if your policy is to take "refugees" and "asylum seekers", who have no skills, no interest, and no ability to work.


Seriously, we've reached "peek diversity". This is going to end badly, one way or another. And I'm not anti-immigration or anything of the sort. But Europe has just been plain stupid. What kind of morons do this to themselves?

Where's this policy to only accept the "worst"?

a) refugees are comprised of those with a demonstrated lack of interest in participating in violent conflict.

b) refugees are likely to have a variety of skills, although some retraining might be needed

c) um, I'm pretty sure that they are interested in working. Not sure? Why don't you go down to a refugee centre and offer some low-paid cash jobs to some refugees, and find out how hard they are willing to work.

The story is about refugee policy, not immigration policy. I don't understand why so many people are unable to see these as two completely different areas of law and practice.

Probably because because of scum like you, even when the conflict ends, most (pseudo)refugees won't be forcibly returned to whatever shithole they came from.

You could at least try to vary the incentive a little. You're stuck in a rather narrow-minded thought process.

What do you call a person who flees war and seeks refuge?

If the war continues on in Syria for many years, they will become naturalized citizens. If the war ends soon, presumably many will prefer to return to their homeland. Naturally, I prefer the situation that involves the war coming to an end sooner, so that the shithole that Syria presently is can soon commence in rebuilding and eventually exceed the previous heights it had scaled.

"If the war continues on in Syria for many years, they will become naturalized citizens. If the war ends soon, presumably many will prefer to return to their homeland."

So, as I said, cucks like you will prevent them from being forcibly deported. They have to go away 'if they prefer', no matter what the indiginous Europeans want.
You are very lucky you are born when you were. In every previous era in history, you would currently be hanging from a tree with your gut split open because of your treason.
Hopefully, in the future things will return to normal and you will die a very slow, very painful violent death.

It's not that hard to deport people if you want to. No need for violence. Having satistifed legal requirements for due process, you knock on their door, drag them out, put them on a plane, and it's done.

However, most will leave of their own free will, if there is a credible belief that there is hope in rebuilding their homeland.

" In every previous era in history, you would currently be hanging from a tree with your gut split open because of your treason"

Nazis only ever ruled for a very short time once, and the world rose up to destroy them. This is what the historical record teaches us.

Men aged 15-25 or thereabouts. Regardless of race or religion, those are your primary law breakers. Those should have been given much stricter scrutiny, such as no admittance without evidence of a wife and kids.

This will, in fact, be the real policy within a year if Europe has any prayer of getting this under control.

That group also faces the highest level risk of death in a conflict, whether they are combattants or not.

Also, there is no policy to priotize this group.

That isn't Europe's problem.

Europe could have gotten the majority of the refugees with little problem, perhaps finding some other way to deal with the fighting-age males. And by taking in most of the refugees with little problem, Europe would have been able to continue to take in refugees. But because they fucked it up, there is backlash, and the usual suspects are out in force to say that the only problem was that the best and brightest running this weren't given enough power.

No. Europe was a golden goose capable of helping a lot with refugees, but you got greedy and overdid it because of a belief that the refugees were innocent angels fleeing war instead of normal people with normal flaws. Now you are pissed at the goose for being dead.

I wonder why 80% of so-called "refugees" are from this group.

Hmm, that's a tough one to answer there Nathan.

AIG - probably because young males are the main targets in a war. Those who don't want to participate in the war are wise to leave. It's not like there's any side worth joining - there is no virtuous rebel alliance with a chance of winning, no?

Also, it is normal for young men to seek economic opportunity. Yes, they're fleeing war, but if they can make a few bucks to help out the family, young men are uniquely poised to do so, due to having fewer commitments/attachments.

Dan - well, one could argue that it's not Europe's problem. a) in an interconnected world, another country's problem can indeed be our concern, and b) this perspective is inconsistent with both Christian and humanist values, both of which are predominant in Western mores. Taking the "not me problem" logic to the extreme, applied to the level of communities, families and individuals, the world would be a much worse place.

Compare the number of deaths in the EU and the US as a result of random 'terror' attacks. Who's policing better?

Now compare those to the risk of being crushed to death by unstable televisions and furniture: http://blogs.cfr.org/zenko/2012/02/24/america-is-a-safe-place/

I propose mandatory RFID labelling for TVs and sofas, followed by intern/warehousing camps, while we work out the logists of removing 800 million TVs and 500 million sofas from the country. They are a threat to our way of life (too sedentary, bad for health) and an active threat to life and limb. Or, we could just smash them all to pieces to save on the cost of removing these societal terrors before the next one strikes.

Preventative measures have repeatedly been proven to fail. Some of long advocated for just properly affixing TVs and furniture according to established best principles. But, TVs and furtinure continue to kill people, proving that preventative measures can be easily written off as a complete failure, not even worth trying.

For love of country, God, life and limb, and all future generations, save us from the threat of poorly affixed TVs and furniture. If action is not taken to deport them all soon, we may have to smash them all to bits. No other option is available. Preventative measures are a proven failure.

There are actual laws and regulations about TV stands. You also can sue companies if you get killed, even if you assembled the stand incorrectly.

Are there laws like this so I could sue a mosque that radicalized a killer?

I would advise you to sue Saudi Arabia.

Which you can't do, of course.

Maybe there should be. Very creative idea.

However, my understanding based on a recent WaPo article is that the normal story line is that most mosques are not at all like this, and the radicalized individual leaves the moderating influence of the traditional community, having been poached by some self-styled imam and walled off into a fairly nutty jihadist social circle.

Or watched enough YouTube videos uploaded from Yemen. This is why this problem is not easy to solve. This is why people resort to Facebook memes and platitudes on the one hand, or go to super extremes for solutions.

I really can't blame people for doing either, because nobody has a really optimal solution.

I keep hoping it will fade away like the anarchist craze in the 19th century.

Harun - I tend to think the "fade away" strategy is optimal. This implies very careful messaging on the part of more responsible actors (which makes the extremists very angry, because they want the media to make big news out of each and every violation on the side of the issue that they hate), in order to not inflame any of the extremes. For practical purposes, this involves resisting calls for strategies which are likely to further radicalize people, such as shooting people at the border or intensive official surveillance of specific population groups.

Similar logic suggests that an excessively strong anti-ISIS military strategy is not a good idea either. While clearly the West could rapidly achieve outright military victory in the short-term, this would contribute to further radicalization - steeling ourselves against the immediate humanitarian cost and pursuing a strategy which prioritizes containment and a slow path to victory would be better, in particular if done in a manner which does not allow ISIS to blame suffering within its territory on other actors. Much like Castro used the blockade on Cuba to blame all problems on the Americans and justify furthering his political grip on society, this is an outcome that we should seek to avoid with respect to populations in territories held by ISIS. Hence, a need for sufficient humanitarian support to make a lie of any ISIS propaganda which might blame suffering on non-ISIS combattants.

Notice the real problem is European Integration. Every single European state has a state police/security force that has considerable local authority and some history of politicization. Belgium is an excellent example. This is ok because the politicization and corruption of each of these entities is within the nation and the various flaws have been adjusted within each nation state for local conditions. In other words each EU state has its own tame or semi tame secret police.

With this in mind it makes complete sense that any integration of such inherently sensitive bodies would liberate each of these from informal control by local political entities and pose the creation of a transnational leviathan that could operate against national, local, interest.

Now I doubt Germany, France, or even Poland, has much to worry about here, but they aren't exactly the problem. The Belgians are in the state they are in because they have a particularly messed up set of security services that has a really troubled recent history, but that doesn't mean that any Belgian stakeholder would ever want to turn it over to the EU and lose almost all power over it.

Even in Nation states, thw creation of state wide police forces is a problem that often requires considerable force and special circumstances and they always become a major part of centralizing control. Look at the creation of the FBI in the US and its involvement in sectional conflict and centralization of state power if you need an example.

I almost can't believe that people believe "Just Another MR Commenter" is a sincere Trump fanboy. He's had at least 3 distinct posting gimmicks in the time I've read this site, all of them optimized to be as obnoxious as possible. On the other hand this is still technically a libertarian site, so maybe the comments should be a miserable laissez-faire dystopia.

He's a troll who has posted here for many years. I recall when he imitated libertarians because at the time they dominated the comments section.

He's presumably a faculty rival of Cowen and Tabarrok, jerking their chain.

"you are tempted to believe that the EU is doing everything possible to manage the refugees crisis well "

Who believes that? Who believes the US is doing everything possible to manage the refugees crisis well? Who believes anyone is doing everything possible to manage any crisis well? Give me a break, hiding an opinion behind a strawman.

What is the connection between the terror attacks and current refugees? I thought most or all of the terrorists were born in Western European countries; it is news to me that the situation in some Western European countries is so bad that people there are becoming refugees.

Also--is Europe's failures why the US has a far higher death rate from violence?

The connection is that today's refugees will give birth to tomorrow's disillusioned muslim youths, some of whom will be tomorrow's terrorists. Europe is already reaping the "benefits" of the offspring of previous waves of immigration.

Perhaps the solution is to admit refugees only on the condition that they do not procreate.

Well, we could work to ensure their diillusionment by excluding them from jobs and chanting epithets against them wherever they go. Never let a chance to self fulfill a prophecy go to waste.

NAMs can't get jobs because they lack the IQ to get jobs. There are an incredible number of affirmative action programs to integrate them, but they disappoint in every single culture they are a part of. The answer is genetics. There is no government program that can change their genetics. You are committing the suicide of your own society simply because you don't want to face this reality.

They tend to do pretty well in Canada, especially the second generation which has had a chance to build networks and has native-level language skills.

Clearly it is not genes.

I view "society" in a cultural sense, not a genetic one. I would rather live in a world which upheld society with zero "white genes" than a neo-fascist one which preserved them. Culture, not genes. After all, we're all human - what difference does it make?

Culture is an epiphenomenon.

".I would rather live in a world which upheld society with zero “white genes” than a neo-fascist one which preserved them. '

Yes, moron, we already know you are a subhuman cuck. Do the white gene pool a favor and kill yourself now - your pathetic uselessness won't be missed.

John - You call me a cuck about 90% of the time, scum about 75% of the time, a traitor about 75% of the time, sub-human about 60% of the time, an encourage me to kill myself about 30% of the time. You also routinely infer that the correct thing to do with people like me is to kill them.

You seem to be programmed into very narrow lines of thinking that you cannot break out of.

Anger is not happy. Why not seek a means to overcome your anger?

Question: Can you please explain to us what you see as the difference between yourself and jihadist terrorists, without any references to genes or skin colour?

Expand the tribe. We are all human.

Oh, and by the way, if this were not an anonymous internet forum, ignoring the fact that I can demonstrably handly the threats and harassment, you are violating both harassment and hate speech laws and could justifiably end up in prison. The first amendment does not give you the right to harass people, threaten them with violence, or try to drive them into suicide. Your oh-so-superior genes would not have good prospects at passing themselves on from prison, where you would end up if these conversations occurred on the street and I had a recording of them.

"Why not seek a means to overcome your anger?"

Because I don't need to. In the current environment, anger and hate are both evolutionary beneficial.

"Can you please explain to us what you see as the difference between yourself and jihadist terrorists, without any references to genes or skin colour?"
They are sufficient. And the only thing that matters in the long run, actually.

"We are all human. "
The fact that subhumans belong to the same species (but obviously not the same subspecies) is irrelevant. Again, you are ignorant of evolutionary biology. Any species that is in effect an apex predator has the most conflict and selection pressure with its distant kin, not with other species. Hating and excluding those genetically distant to you is the ONLY rational strategy in this situation.

"The first amendment does not give you the right to harass people, threaten them with violence, or try to drive them into suicide."

On the contrary, the First Amendment gives me all of these rights. And even liberal activist judges have uphold my right to do the 1st and 3rd of those. Not the second, though. That's why I don't do it.
Good luck with getting me convicted about saying you 'deserve to be killed' in any American court of law. That may fly in the land of the Trudeau cuck but not here.

I'll just finish that by saying that all people who betray their in-group (like you) deserve slow, painful, violent death.

> diillusionment by excluding them from jobs

I agree. Those countries should liberalize their labor markets. Even Germany explicitly bans refugees from getting a job for a period of months. (It used to be nine months, recently lowered to three months.) Let's end the protected job markets.

Germany has a pretty famously protected job market. I can't imagine the local unions are going to accept non-unionized competition. Are there enough high paying union jobs to employ the refugees?

That was partly my point. There are ways to assimilate lots of immigrants, but it requires things Europe doesn't like to do, like strongly discouraging welfare.

I suspect some of the host nations think they are doing the refugees a favor by keeping them out of the labor pool.

Of course, we get the same hand-wringing in the U.S. following a terrorist act for the failure of coordination between federal and state and local law enforcement. It's a problem, often compounded by politics, with federal law enforcement under the control of one political party and state and local law enforcement under the control of another. Indeed, with even fewer travel restrictions in the U.S. across states, the problem may well be greater here than in Europe, the difference being that Europe is now ground zero for Sunni Arab Muslim terrorism.

The problem of terrorism in Europe can easily be solved by sealing the borders of Europe and expelling the existing Moslem population. Continuation of the ongoing immigration will lead to massive violence and destabilization.

I'm not sure whether Western Europeans have the will to survive in the face of the Islamic onslaught but the Eastern Europeans are not yet ready for civilizational suicide. They will fight.

Guarding one's civlization by abandoning many or most of its central features.

That will definitely be effective in guarding one's civilzation.

Many or most of its central features? I don't think we have the same definition of Western Civilization. If openness to significant immigration without assimilation and with anarcho-tyranny thrown in for good measure is a central feature of our civilization, then Western Civilization hasn't existed for more than a few decades. The end result of the perpetual liberal revolution is the repudiation of positions that were considered blindingly obvious and normal just a short time ago, in civilizational terms, not to mention institutions, figures etc.

What we are doing now is not working, so let's rollback some things to a previous version and try something else. We can discuss not losing desirable advances, but this whole abandonment of civilization accusation is silly. We shouldn't allow the ideological opposition to No-True-Scotsman us into accepting their framing of what is good, what is desirable, what is our civilization, who we are etc.

When you refer to "assimilation", what extent of assimilation do you have in mind? Must they adopt neo-fascist preferences or would it be sufficient to respect freedom of speech, freedom of religion, and respect for democratic institutions?

Also, when you envision "anarcho-tyranny", what does this mean to you, and what is the most likely pathway you see as leading to there?

"What we are doing now is not working,"

In which sense? In the sense that terrorists are killing people in numbers similar to the number who die to to improperly installed TVs and furniture? Or do you just mean that you don't like it?

"let’s rollback some things to a previous version "

Which previous version do you have in mind? The one that got bombed out in Dresden, for example, or the Victorian one where children only speak when spoken to and women are subservient to men? How far back should we go? Would the 2005 status quo be a sufficient rollback for you?

"this whole abandonment of civilization accusation is silly"

I whole heartedly agree. The notion that our entire civlization will collapse if 0.5% or 2% is added to Europe's population in the form of newcomers seems rather hysterical to me. If there are specific things that you think should be highlighted for preservation, it would be easier to pinpoint what level of assimilation exactly we might consider as essentially non-negotiable with newcomers. Preserving the vote for women or racial minorities seems like an obvious candidate for desirable advances that we should insist on retaining. Perhaps you would like to expand the list?

I remembered something written by Mark Steyn.
"Each year Anjem Choudary earns more in benefits than a soldier does starting off in our armed forces. This is a fact I never tire of pointing out – especially to Anjem's face whenever we have the misfortune to meet. The follow-on point, which I think also worth continuing to make, is that there is something suicidal about a society that rewards its enemies better than it does its defenders."

I'm not endorsing Jim's proposals, but "abandoning central features" it is not. The EU's current levels of immigration are extremely recent, mostly dating back two decades or so. Its not like returning to a European policy structure of the 1970s would be illiberal.

Cutting back on immigration levels and dropping Schengen would be more like reverting to European policies, not abandoning them.

If Westerners in the past had had the same attitude as Nathan Western civilization would never have existed. If he had been alive in Greece in the 5th century BC he no doubt would have welcomed Persian immigrants. "I, for one, welcome our new Muslim overlords" should be his motto. He's a quisling.

Persians weren't Muslims, then. They even drank date wine. Mmmmm, date wine.

The Persians showed up en masse with weapons and an unambiguously explicit agenda of conquest. The people we're talking about who are presently entering Europe are fleeing war.

Civilians are not soldiers, in case the difference is not clear to you. I'm not sure that you're aware how absurd your reasoning comes across to the vast majority of the population, as much as you feel like you're engaging in obvious Truth Talking after exiting the echo chambers.

Islam quite certainly has an agenda of conquest.

If the Persians would have thought the Greeks would have let them take over just by migrating en masse until they had de facto control, I'm sure they would have done that. Much cheaper.

Jim - "Islam" is not a monolithic entity. You are painting the entire 1.6 billion adherents as having the same views as the extremists. This is about as irrtational as defining America as a whole on the basis of the presence of the KKK.

KKK exists in America. Therefore all white people support KKK. This is proven by the fact that the KKK has not been eradicated.

That's the kind of logic you're using.

The obvious problems with expelling current residents is a pretty good reason to make sure of what you are doing when admitting people in the first place, instead of just blindly stumbling along and ignoring your critics.

The sad thing is that this didn't need to be such a botch. There could have been pretty good assimilation. But the chance was lost because too much of Europe was believing its own press releases.

Western Civilization began in the 1960s, with the invention of Multiculturalism. Liberals do love a good historical retcon.

Rome was pretty multicultural 2000 years ago. London has been pretty international for a long time too.

One may insist on varying degrees of "doing as they do in Rome" in the public sphere, without concerning oneself with practices preferred by newcomers on their own time.

And anyways, I'm pretty sure that Britain is the only remotely European country that has anything remotely approaching a policy of multiculturalism. Interesting that they seem to have rather fewer problems than some other countries ...

Eastern Europeans suck at integrating immigrants. Consider the case of the Roma, who came to Eastern Europe in the 13th century. They are still an underclass minority, with like 85% unemployment. I guess 600+ years is just not enough to get it done. That should not give confidence to anyone that Eastern Europe can swallow a new wave of people from Asia.

A lot of this debate focuses on the shortcomings of the immigrants, but we should also acknowledge the shortcomings of their potential hosts: Neither group is composed of angels, and that matters when we're trying to estimate how well all this would work out.

The Roma are obligate parasites.

Actually it is likely that over time many of the Roma actually left the group and merged into the general European population. The ones who continued to identify as Roma were more and more selected for parasitism.

Rushton tested a village of Roma in Bulgaria and found an average IQ of about 70.

People with basically no education who couldn't care less about tests tend not to do well on standardized tests.

Any other brilliant observations to bring to the table?

Did you hear about the Roma girl in Britain who scored who scored perfect on an IQ test and had higher IQ than Einstein? This article doesn't mention that she's Roma (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/02/13/girl-iq-161-lauren-marbe_n_2676885.html), but a Pakistani media outlet thought this detail was worth reporting (http://en.dailypakistan.com.pk/viral/12-year-old-british-gypsy-girl-scores-higher-than-einstein-on-iq-test-546/).

I conclude that anti-capitalist cultural factors and discrimination are largely responsible for poor performance among Roma.

Nathan, are you for real?


Attacks in the EU, though, have been going down since 2006.

Notice the decline in Seperatist attacks, and also leftists, not to mention mafia. Previously terrorism in Europe was mostly of European origin and could be avoided by staying out of places like Ulster, the Basque country, and the wrong bits of Corsica/Sicily. Also most of those earlier attacks were low casualty.

Other than very specific campaigns most of these attacks were low casualty and not say in Paris or Brussels. The exceptions such as Madrid train bombings and London were major events but not followed up on a grand scale. Notice that other than the lone wolf Breivik these are attacks on Europe by outsiders. This sequence is something else again.


The companion graph is terrorism based arrests in Europe (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terrorism_in_the_European_Union#/media/File:Terrorist_Arrests_in_the_EU_by_Affiliation.png). We see a large increase in arrests for 'religious based'.

I understand your point. Separatist attacks 'felt' different than ISIS inspired ones. However I think some of that is a bit nostalgic. Groups like the IRA did kill innocent people and setting off bombs in public spaces is terrorism even if the person doing it is not a suicide bomber. Even so we see a huge decline in such attacks but they haven't been taken place by ISIS inspired attacks. While these attacks are occasionally high in causalities, Europe does appear to have done a reasonable job foiling lots of such attacks.

This is impressive because ISIS essentially is 'crowd sourcing' its terrorism. Instead of planning attacks centrally and in great detail, it just asks everyone and anyone to try to pull off any type of terrorism they can pull off. ISIS then just has to sit back and 'take credit' for the attacks they like against targets they want to target while ignoring others. This is probably the most efficient way to pull off terrorism since complicated 9/11 style attacks offer the possibility of more fantastic attacks but they are very difficult to pull off since large networks increase the possibility of detection and the West has been very good picking off the chain of command in centrally based terrorist groups. The good news here is this is probably as good as ISIS is ever going to get so while we may yet suffer more attacks the fact is we are looking at an ideology that is losing rather than winning.

Of course, the irony is they set up a Rube Goldberg architecture to maintain a common currency that's not doing anyone a blessed bit of good and to take power away from elected officials generally, but they devote insufficient institutional efforts to the sort of mutual aid that could benefit them generally. Elites on both sides of the Atlantic are incompetent, corrupt, and mendacious. We'll know Europe is in recovery when the Hag Chancellor, Mary Robinson, Peter Sutherland, and the editor of The Economist are paraded through Brussels covered in tar and feathers.

The first issue is it is relatively easy to cross country line and there is no European FBI to police the area. The FBI grew a lot in 1920 - 1930 because it suddenly easier with cars for gangsters to cross state lines and it took a Federal agency to perform investigations and capture criminals.

Otherwise, even as a pro-immigration sympathizer, too many immigrants is a problem and Germany & Europe did not have the resources nor the Muslim communities to deal with them.

"The guerrilla must move among the people as a fish swims in the sea." - Mao Zedong

Perhaps there are just too many big terrorist-friendly "seas" in Europe for anyone to effectively police? If so, an effective solution would be to drain them, or at least to break up the larger ones into smaller ones, where it might be more difficult for the "fish" to remain hidden. Yet instead of contemplating this, European politicians seem determined to create more and larger "seas"?

So, perhaps the reason why things are as they are is because Europeans want them that way. In which case everyone will just have to learn to live with an "acceptable level of violence."

Now it is minor incidents like what happened in Paris or Brussels. What is coming in the future as the Moslem population of Europe grows will be awesomely bloody.

If the response is one that drives radicalization, then perhaps yes. Pro-radicalization strategies should be avoided.

Increasing radicalization over time is a very common characteristic of group conflicts. As the Moslem population of Europe increases so will it's radicalization.

Well, if pro-radicalization strategies are priortiized, then yeah, there will be more radicalization.

Preventative strategies might be more worth considering.

Nathan, you should contact the Israeli government and inform them of your great wisdom in resolving ethnic conflicts. With the benefit of your enlightened guidance on this subject I am sure that in no time at all the Jews and Arabs in Palestine will all LOVE ONE ANOTHER.

Actually they already love one another. They love to kill each other.

The greatest tragedy of Brussells by far was the obliteration of all those organized stacks of trillion dollar bills on the sidewalks.

Not to worry, as long as they pay no attention to borders there'll soon be many more....

They are idiots.

"the E.U. has been unable to agree on reforms that might expand the budget and powers of FRONTEX, the E.U. agency charged with coordinating border control"

Euroskeptics shot themselves in the foot. I'm not sure if we should expect that they should have anticipated the type or extent of the current crisis of many millions fleeing war, but the EU would have solved this years ago if it weren't for staunch Euroskeptics.

"but the EU would have solved this years ago if it weren’t for staunch Euroskeptics. "

LOL. Sure, problems with the EU are obviously the fault of Euroskeptics. And problems with Obamacare are clearly the fault of Republicans.

The world would be a socialist utopia if it weren't for the kulaks & wreckers.

The parallels between the immigration defenders and the Iraq War defenders are stupefying. Up to and including blaming a third-party that they knew completely existed beforehand.

It sucks because they both could have been successes. But good intentions aren't enough.

The Iraq War never had any chance of accomplishing anything of value. The Middle East can certainly gemerate a lot of instability and violence all by itself but deliberatly destabilizing it is madness.

A putative strike to take out Saddam Hussein and destroy any Chemical Weapons production would probably have achieved all of the gains for a fraction of the cost. Instead, the Bush Administration decided to go with the Wilsonian nation building model which was a disaster.

That should really be destroy the theoretical Chemical/Biological /Nuclear Weapons production capacity.

I think we've learned not to invade countries on the basis of rumours.

I recall seeing reports which purported to show "evidence" of the chemical weapons program. They were satellite images of trucks on highways. Somehow it went from "theoretically one could have a mobile chemical weapons program circulating around the country in trucks" to "look, here's a picture of a truck, THEREFORE there is an advanced chemical weapons program and this is PROOF".

Some segments of the general public have learned to apply more scrutiny in assessing such claims, and fortunately they are represented at the highest levels of government. It would be nice if Republicans leaders would be less inclined to jump on any old narrative which potentially justfies the "let's drop lots of bombs on people" approach to things.

JWatts - I don't think there were any chemical wapons to destroy. Overthrowing Hussein was bound to be destabilizing just as overthrowing Kaddafi was or overthrowing Assad would be. The situation in the Middle East is bad enough left alone. We should try not to make it worst.

This is not remotely like ACA.

I'm not taking sides in whether Euroskepticism or Euro-centralization should be prioritized. I simply don't have a strong opinion either way. However, it is clear that Europe would have had a common external defense and border policy if it were not for Euroskeptics, and would be better prepared to enforce a common border policy in the present, without reducing additional national sovereignty to take additional measures if they wanted to.

It's kind of like (some) Republicans complaining about illegal immigration in America, but not allocating the funds that would be needed to implement strategies that would be effective in doing so. For example, expansive spot checks of employers in industries known to hire illegals, combined with large fines for employers found in violation.

Why blame others for a problem when you persistently stymie things that would make it easier to address the problem? Like, yeah, the other side of the argument is more sympathetic to the thing that you don't want to happen, but opposing things that would facilitate solutions seems rather inconsistent to me.

Comments for this post are closed