<http://sultanknish.blogspot.com/> Daniel Greenfield article: Superiority
Complex
<http://fusion.google.com/add?source=atgs&feedurl=http://feeds.feedburner.co
m/FromNyToIsraelSultanRevealsTheStoriesBehindTheNews>
_____
<http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/FromNyToIsraelSultanRevealsTheStoriesBehindT
heNews/~3/CnZTqethQew/superiority-complex.html?utm_source=feedburner&utm_med
ium=email> Superiority Complex
Posted: 19 Sep 2010 07:36 PM PDT
The people of most nations have a natural tendency to believe themselves
superior because of their culture, religion and way of life. Such a belief
not only makes for a healthy dose of national pride, but also serves as an
immune system rallying the people to fight off invasions and maintain their
way of life against the winds of change.
<http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_mveHL3n_4ME/TJbILYVFgJI/AAAAAAAAD_0/km2GHOw0Ajw/s
1600/AZ+Immigration+Rally+photo.jpg>
Today in the First World however, liberals attack such beliefs in their own
countries as reactionary and dangerous. Those who do believe that their
country is better or that their culture is superior, are mocked as ignorant,
stigmatized as bigoted and routinely compared to Nazis. This is the liberal
reductio ad absurdum which reduces all forms of pride in one's group, any
sense of cultural worth and national exceptionalism to jackboots and
straight armed salutes. Pinning all the blame on the "National" half of
National Socialist, while completely overlooking the "Socialist" part, which
had a good deal to do with the economic problems that the Nazis decided to
loot their way out of, not to mention the centuries of historical context
that made Nazism what it was, was a convenient way for globalists to attack
nationalists for reasons that had nothing to do with WW2. And everything to
do with their ideological belief that the Nation-State was the great enemy
of human progress.
But what happens when people who do believe that their culture, their
nationality and their religion are superior immigrate into nations where the
host population has been taught that they are no better than anyone else?
Contrary to liberal dogma, the result can never be tolerance. Only
intolerance. And when the cultural and national sense of superiority of new
immigrants is encouraged, while that of the native population is
discouraged, conflict is inevitable. Under such conditions, assimilation and
adaptation are out of the conquest. Why would you want to adapt to an
inferior culture? Why would you respect people who don't respect themselves?
Violence by new immigrants is met by appeasement which only feeds an
existing superiority complex. Liberals treat every act of violence as a
response to discrimination by a racist host society, that must be remedied
with more benefits, apologies and kowtowing. A process that only convinces
the new immigrants that they really are superior. Because for all the talk
of tolerance, they are entitled to special privileges, that the natives not.
New immigrants who come from cultures where there is no notion of equality,
and a wide gap between the high and the low, may accept tolerance from their
betters, but not from their inferiors. Tolerance and charity from your
inferiors is an insult that must be answered by showing them their place.
If liberals treated all cultures, all nations and their historical
narratives of greatness as equally invalid, the results would still be
disastrous, but less incompatible. But when for example, the American
narrative of heroism in the Alamo is disparaged, but the Mexican narrative
of heroism in the Mexican-American War is celebrated and affirmed-- then a
clash of cultures is inevitable.
So too when European colonialism is depicted as evil, but Muslim colonialism
as beneficial, there will be conflict, rather than peaceful co-existence.
Rather than defanging nationalism, liberals only cripple the nationalism of
their own home countries, while encouraging the nationalism of the new
arrivals. Little wonder then that Europe looks the way it does, or that
America is facing a critical conflict over its future. Sarkozy is being
depicted as the embodiment of evil, because he's trying to evict illegal
gypsies from encampments in France. Israel is being roasted over the coals
domestically, because it wants to deport some of its migrant workers, who
have managed to drop their own anchor babies in the country. Arizona's
governor is being compared to Hitler for trying to check the immigration
status of criminals. Cameron's immigration cap is meeting with Liberal
Democratic hysteria.
The common denominator is that First World countries with very generous
immigration policies are being depicted as monsters for trying to exercise
some very limited authority over immigration. The United States is a country
of immigrants, France and England are filled with refugees and their
children, and their children's children. Israel has taken in everyone from
Sudanese refugees to Vietnamese boat people. But somehow it's never enough.
Because domestic liberals will always insist that immigrants from more
backward parts of the world, have more rights than the country's own
citizens, particularly than those citizens who used to be immigrants and
actually paid their dues. Instead liberals prefer refugees, bordercrossers
and migrant workers, often with shady backgrounds and little to contribute
except social problems.
And their only real argument is the same old reductio ad absurdum. Deporting
gypsies is bad, even if their presence is illegal, because the Nazis
deported gypsies. Barak suggested that Israel deporting migrant workers with
their children who were born in the country, would make Israel appear to be
no different than the Nazis. Arizona checking immigration status, again no
different than the Nazis. Going by such talking points, you might get the
impression that the Nazis were bad because they deported illegal immigrants,
not because they were genocidal mass murderers who tried to conquer the
world.
<http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_mveHL3n_4ME/TJbINl60CyI/AAAAAAAAD_4/oLVUgB05r3Y/s
1600/BritainMuslimShariaNetherlands.jpg>
Except of course virtually every country with a functioning government
deports people who are in the country illegally. Sometimes it imprisons
them. A country that does not control its own borders or make any
distinction between citizens and people who just wander on in, is arguably
no longer a functioning state.
And that is the central point of controversy. Whether nation states will
continue to exist as entities with representative governments empowered to
manage regions by their native populations, or whether they will give way to
regional and global organizations that do not represent citizens, but the
welfare of anyone and everyone in the area. The left favors accelerating the
breakup of First World states using population transplantation. The less
compatible the new immigrants are, the more social problems they bring with
them, and the more hostile their disposition toward the natives-- so much
the better. Because the goal is colonization, not integration.
In its day, the USSR deliberately mixed together population groups,
deporting and transplanting different groups, where they would be
perpetually in conflict with one another. Uzbeks and Koreans, Russians and
Estonians, Chechens and Kazakhs, and so on and so forth. These policies bred
a great deal of needless conflict, which still continues to this day. But
this Divide and Conquer policy kept different groups at each other's throats
where they weren't a threat. The Soviet Union did not invent this tactic, it
was carried over from the Czars, and was an old tactic of empires. To break
up the national resistance of a native population by colonizing it with
foreigners.
But the tactics of empires have a way of turning on them. Today Russia's
future is Muslim, a future that its Ex-KGB rulers embrace in order to keep
the Chinese at bay. Europe's future is not the EU, not even Eurabia, but
something closer to the Middle East, a squabbling mixture of angry peoples
who are united loosely by Islam, but cannot stop fighting each other long
enough to form the much heralded Caliphate. The future is no better for
America, where Mexican nationalists will find themselves fighting
African-Americans, Hmong and others who won't be nearly as enthusiastic
about Reconquista once the multicultural facade comes off, revealing Mexican
nationalism, and second class status for everyone else.
Liberals have been calculatedly trashing the free market social advancement
and legal equality that made it possible for so many different peoples to
call America home. On American shores, nationalities who couldn't stand each
other at home, learned to get along. Not because they were forced to by the
diktat of some committee, or an educational campaign on tolerance featuring
celebrities, but because fighting no longer made sense. They did not for the
most part cease to be French, Scottish, Italian, Irish, Jewish, Japanese and
all those things, but they could be those things without having to fight
each over them.
Legal equality and advancement through a free market, meant that fighting
each other no longer offered any kind of advantage. Working hard and
co-existing with others did. At least it didn't until the 1960's came along,
and suddenly being a member of a victimized group and willingness to riot in
the streets became very advantageous. The American experiment fragmented
into a gang war, in which success was a badge of shame demonstrating that
you were either one of the oppressors or their lackeys, and failure proved
that you were the victim of the man. And the American middle class, that
great engine of social change that had served as a firewall against
socialism, began falling apart.
Being American used to mean a sense of optimism and confidence in the
future. Now it has come to mean always being willing to say sorry. Americans
are denounced for denying history, for refusing to admit their culpability
and for not being sensitive enough to everyone else's feelings.
The great triumph of liberalism has been to hijack a formerly optimistic
culture, and transform it into a pessimistic one, feeding it nightmares
about nuclear war, global poverty, pollution and global warming. Snatching
defeat out of the jaws of victory, they successfully turned the American
dream into the American nightmare. Liberal culture took an America which had
been the symbol of commercial triumph, and forced it to see itself as its
enemies saw it, glutinous, barbarous, ignorant and violent. And that pattern
has held true across the First World, from Australia to Israel to Italy.
Only a handful of nations with a great deal of national integrity and
resistance to outside influences, such as Japan, have been able to resist
being force fed this mirror history of themselves, in which everything that
they valued proved to be a crime of one sort or another.
But the greatest lie is the one that liberals tell themselves. In their
self-deception they actually believe that Muslim immigrants will see the EU
as a different breed of horse, from the nation states they are hard at work
dismantling. They never stop to ask themselves, why in the world would
Muslims regard the EU as any worthier of their respect and submission, than
the governments of England and France? To Muslims, the EU is a means, not an
end.
Having successfully discredited the histories and cultures of the countries
that gave birth to the EU, the left has also discredited the EU itself.
Within their ranks, a United Europe might be an event of almost religious
significance, but to Muslims, it is nothing more than Europe squared. And if
they are taught contempt for the countries and cultures of Europe, why
should all of them piled together be any different? What the EU is to the
Eurocrat, the Caliphate is to the Muslim. An inspired union that transcends
the old laws and norms. And if they have to give their loyalty to something,
it will be the Islamic Union of the Caliphate, rather than the secular
European Union.
<http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_mveHL3n_4ME/TJbIbNFeVTI/AAAAAAAAD_8/1f9f2bpuj6c/s
1600/0_57498_9e6b2c0e_orig.jpg>
The situation is no better in America, where every value and tradition is
being replaced by a vast bureaucracy and codes that no one knows or
understands in their entirety. Without an American patriotism, or a history
worthy of respect, there is no bond but that of a popular culture that is
saturated with celebrity scandals and the ceaseless tabloid shriek of fame
being offered fleetingly to ordinary people who manage to become elevated to
a meme of their own. Without legal equality, ordinary people no longer have
rights, but connections to people within the bureaucracy who can help them
out. Without a free market, the best strategy is to employ those connections
to make money off the government. And such a system naturally pits
ethnicities and races against one another. Without law or mutual interests,
such conflicts will eventually be settled with violence, as they were in
urban areas during the seventies.
Without universally respected laws, the final argument is always force. And
the more that argument is used successfully, the more it will be used in the
future. The Tough on Crime eighties combined with the economic recovery of
the nineties helped check the worst of it in America. But without economic
prosperity, only force is left as a counterweight. And force requires that
you be willing to use it. Meanwhile Europe is headed into the teeth of that
same storm. Before the next decade is through there will be a lot more
burning in Europe than cars, entire cities will burn. The left has empowered
the use of violence as a tool of social change, over market economics. But
their romanticism of revolutionary violence will lead to a revolution that
will have more in common with Iran and Pakistan, than with the storming of
the Bastille.
The left has fed the superiority complexes of refugees and migrant workers,
even as it has marginalized and criminalized the superiority complex of the
natives. It has done this in the name of tolerance, but the collision of two
groups, one of whom has a superiority complex, will not lead to tolerance,
until that latter group takes power. Then it may bestow some tolerance on
those who were its former rulers, but are now its subjects.
<http://feeds.feedburner.com/~ff/FromNyToIsraelSultanRevealsTheStoriesBehind
TheNews?a=CnZTqethQew:qmnvGQaO1Rk:yIl2AUoC8zA>
<http://feeds.feedburner.com/~ff/FromNyToIsraelSultanRevealsTheStoriesBehind
TheNews?a=CnZTqethQew:qmnvGQaO1Rk:I9og5sOYxJI>
<http://feeds.feedburner.com/~ff/FromNyToIsraelSultanRevealsTheStoriesBehind
TheNews?a=CnZTqethQew:qmnvGQaO1Rk:63t7Ie-LG7Y>
<http://feeds.feedburner.com/~ff/FromNyToIsraelSultanRevealsTheStoriesBehind
TheNews?a=CnZTqethQew:qmnvGQaO1Rk:F7zBnMyn0Lo>
<http://feeds.feedburner.com/~ff/FromNyToIsraelSultanRevealsTheStoriesBehind
TheNews?a=CnZTqethQew:qmnvGQaO1Rk:7Q72WNTAKBA>
<http://feeds.feedburner.com/~ff/FromNyToIsraelSultanRevealsTheStoriesBehind
TheNews?a=CnZTqethQew:qmnvGQaO1Rk:V_sGLiPBpWU>
<http://feeds.feedburner.com/~ff/FromNyToIsraelSultanRevealsTheStoriesBehind
TheNews?a=CnZTqethQew:qmnvGQaO1Rk:UT3xtbGYFzA>
<http://feeds.feedburner.com/~ff/FromNyToIsraelSultanRevealsTheStoriesBehind
TheNews?a=CnZTqethQew:qmnvGQaO1Rk:gIN9vFwOqvQ>
<http://feeds.feedburner.com/~ff/FromNyToIsraelSultanRevealsTheStoriesBehind
TheNews?a=CnZTqethQew:qmnvGQaO1Rk:4cEx4HpKnUU>
<http://feeds.feedburner.com/~ff/FromNyToIsraelSultanRevealsTheStoriesBehind
TheNews?a=CnZTqethQew:qmnvGQaO1Rk:cGdyc7Q-1BI>
<http://feeds.feedburner.com/~ff/FromNyToIsraelSultanRevealsTheStoriesBehind
TheNews?a=CnZTqethQew:qmnvGQaO1Rk:qj6IDK7rITs>
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
------------------------------------
--------------------------
Want to discuss this topic? Head on over to our discussion list,
[email protected].
--------------------------
Brooks Isoldi, editor
[email protected]
http://www.intellnet.org
Post message: [email protected]
Subscribe: [email protected]
Unsubscribe: [email protected]
*** FAIR USE NOTICE. This message contains copyrighted material whose use has
not been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. OSINT, as a part of
The Intelligence Network, is making it available without profit to OSINT
YahooGroups members who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the
included information in their efforts to advance the understanding of
intelligence and law enforcement organizations, their activities, methods,
techniques, human rights, civil liberties, social justice and other
intelligence related issues, for non-profit research and educational purposes
only. We believe that this constitutes a 'fair use' of the copyrighted material
as provided for in section 107 of the U.S. Copyright Law. If you wish to use
this copyrighted material for purposes of your own that go beyond 'fair use,'
you must obtain permission from the copyright owner.
For more information go to:
http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtmlYahoo! Groups Links
<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/osint/
<*> Your email settings:
Individual Email | Traditional
<*> To change settings online go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/osint/join
(Yahoo! ID required)
<*> To change settings via email:
[email protected]
[email protected]
<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
[email protected]
<*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
