“We did it to prove to ourselves that we are not prejudiced.” So we are a gaggle of self-absorbed moral narcissicists. That sounds about right. We should remember Narcissus’ fate.

I thought we were doing it to secure for ourselves the blessings of the Religion of Peace. When one surveys the tranquility and prosperity that prevail within the Dar-al-Islam, how can we deny ourselves its benefits? HRS

Has to be seen to be believed. I’m starting to think that there is something seriously flawed in human nature.

Take the case of Germany. To prove that they are REAL sorry about the holocaust, they take in millions of people who are destroying German culture.

At the risk of offending others, I must note that some other religions have customs perhaps as silly from an outside point of view as hurling stones at a symbol of the devil. What is interesting about the disasters at the Hajj is that the Arabs running the thing are such bunglers that they let these disasters happen not just once, but over and over again! You would thing that, purely from a practical point of view, they would have learned SOMETHING about managing crowds.

I rather doubt that the insanity of allowing mass Muslim immigration is due simply to our, or somebody’s, need to prove we are not prejudiced. Rather, it results from self-hatred and a need to punish the West. In the case of France, in particular, the history of relations between Frenchmen and North Africans is so awful that it is hard to understand the French permitting mass immigration by the latter as anything else than as the product of a need to commit suicide in as ugly and degrading a manner as possible.

Powerful point by Mr. Levine. But my point and his point are not incompatible. They’re on a continuum. There is racial/national guilt. People want to relieve themselves of this guilt. On one hand this takes the form of being open to the Other, so as to reject the supposed bad behavior of the past and release oneself of the resulting guilt. But at the same time, there is the awareness that one can never remove the guilt, that it is existential, and so the removal of the guilt requires the destruction of the society itself.

As I wrote in The Path to National Suicide:

“What we have here is an Orwellian version of Original Sin—complete with a new class of racism-awareness priests who will absolve us of the sin of racism if we show a penitent attitude, utter the required formulae, and—last but not least—give in to all their demands. America, whose whole past is racist, can only become ‘good’ to the extent it overcomes the evil of racism. But since America is inherently racist, it can never succeed in doing that. It follows that America can only become a good country when it ceases to exist, i.e., when its European-rooted civilization is dismantled.”

http://www.aicfoundation.com/books.htm

“What we have here is an Orwellian version of Original Sin—complete with a new class of racism-awareness priests who will absolve us of the sin of racism if we show a penitent attitude, utter the required formulae, and—last but not least—give in to all their demands. America, whose whole past is racist, can only become ‘good’ to the extent it overcomes the evil of racism. But since America is inherently racist, it can never succeed in doing that. It follows that America can only become a good country when it ceases to exist, i.e., when its European-rooted civilization is dismantled.” — Lawrence Auster, in “The Path to National Suicide”

All I can say is to repeat Mr. Sutherland’s Marine Pilot’s description “Shack” for such a direct hit. You’ve nailed it, Mr. Auster. It’s right there for anyone with eyes to see. Moreover, it dovetails perfectly with Fr. Seaphim Rose’s exquisite description of the nihilistic Zeitgeist penned a generation ago.

For me, the answer to “why?” comes down to this:

1) The push is toward globalism, ultimately toward a one-world government, attended by a global religious focus. For this purpose, national sovereignty — the concept of nationhood itself — must be destroyed. Especially in the case of the United States, since they are still the strongest of the world powers.

2) Where this fits in more expediently to the interests of the Federal government is the ongoing quest for greater and more centralized power. For that purpose the powers and prerogatives of the States had to be destroyed, which is nearly complete anyway. And then, by diluting the cultural pool, (and practically ‘electing’ a new citizenry), the general govt. can, as another here has said, practice a “divide and rule.”

One goal is larger and more recent, the other continues a trend we’ve seen from the beginning of our present Constitutional Republic.

The whole movement is fueled by a ‘united nations,’ dominated disproportionately by Third World nations, who look with great envy on the freedom and prosperity we in the West enjoy. They want in on it, which is understandable, but simple human pride stands in the way of changing their culture and/or religion of poverty that gives them their own identity but prevents the necessary preconditions for sound economic development and prosperity.

There is something here that I can’t articulate well, especially when the whole world is in view. But when we consider the difference in civilizational abilities between different peoples, I perceive in those on the lower scale an attitude that says that if they cannot fully participate in our civilization, especially due to an inherent lack of ability which they cannot accept as a fact, then human pride requires them to insist that that civilization is illegimate. And they will destroy it, if only by their attempts to participate in it as ‘equals,’ (thus maintaining their denial.)

It’s similar to an attitude we all saw manifested in elementary school, where one boy lacking something would go and break the same of another who had it. It is, to put it bluntly, that if we can’t have it, then white, Western man can’t have it either, and we will take it away and destroy it.

Envy is a powerful force, and I am not sure how to fight it. Pretending to like the envious and to dislike the envied seems to be a primary tool of politicians and is responsible for the current failure of politicians to stop massive immigration. A politician will change on a dime if it is to his advantage unless, it seems, he has convinced himself (as W has) that he is one of the envious.

“But when we consider the difference in civilizational abilities between different peoples, I perceive in those on the lower scale an attitude that says that if they cannot fully participate in our civilization, especially due to an inherent lack of ability which they cannot accept as a fact, then human pride requires them to insist that that civilization is illegimate. And they will destroy it, if only by their attempts to participate in it as ‘equals,’ (thus maintaining their denial.)

It’s similar to an attitude we all saw manifested in elementary school, where one boy lacking something would go and break the same of another who had it. It is, to put it bluntly, that if we can’t have it, then white, Western man can’t have it either, and we will take it away and destroy it.”

Excellent point by Mr. LeFevre.

According to Middle East Online, Moslems view those pilgrims who died in the stampede at Mecca as fortunate, as they are assured of going to heaven if they die in a holy place.

http://www.middle-east-online.com/english/?id=8740

I do not think it’s God’s will that people have been hurt in the chaos. It’s unfortunate, and fortunately rare. It’s a good tradition; it’s one small part of the faith, not “their idea of religion.” Indeed, there are such rituals and symbolism in the Christian faith as well, and they are positive traditions in that faith as well.

Yes you may say that the Arabs- which just to give you some information in which you obviously lack- are less than 50% of the total population of Muslims- i will even argue that there in in the range of 20-40 (there are Iranians, Pakistanis, Indochina, Phillipines, etc). in essence crowd behavior, which results in the deaths of many may even constitue many situations that have taken place in the United States- i.e the Who concert and so forth. The destruction of crowd behavior may also come forth from the lack of control from the police for example, which lets not forget the Watts riots and then the LA riots- did we learn anything from there?