My Problem With Immigrants

When I told people back in South Africa that I was planning to emigrate to the U.S., there were many comments made — “You’ll be increasing the average IQ in both countries, then” was a popular one.  But the most perceptive one was actually made by my ex-wife, who said:

“Well, Kim was born an American.  He just happened to be in the wrong country at the time.”

Actually, that was very close to the truth.  Before I was born, my parents had made plans to emigrate to Canada, and my dad had actually been granted a work permit.  Then my mother discovered she was pregnant (with me), and she couldn’t bear to leave her family, so that was the end of it.  (So I came thisclose  to saying “eh” at the end of my sentences, and pronouncing boat  as “boot”.  Small mercies.)

Anyway, I ended up here, and while living with Longtime Friend Trevor in Austin in 1986, I was invited to a party of South African expats.  I went, and it was a nightmare.  Back in South Africa, we used to call Rhodesian immigrants “when-wees” because almost all their sentences began with the words “When we still lived in Bulawayo…” etc.

Well, the South African party in Austin was full of South African when-wees, all bitching and moaning about how much better they had it back in the old Racist Republic.  And when I got sick of this shit, and asked of one particular whiner, “If it was so much better back there, why don’t you just fuck off home?”… let’s just say that the atmosphere became distinctly unpleasant after that little comment, and I didn’t stay long at the party.  I never went to another one ever again, wherever I lived.

Look, I understand this situation as well as anyone.  It’s a hell of a thing to change countries, to leave family and friends behind, and all the comforts of home as well.  All the customs and mores are different — and I didn’t have the same language issues as someone from, say, Serbia even.  The whole attitude to life is different in a new country, and it can be terribly lonely.

The natural instinct, then, is to gather with other people from the Old Country, so that you can commiserate with like souls, also lonely in this strange new land.  I don’t agree with it myself, but I acknowledge that it’s understandable.  (I made a conscious effort to fit into my adopted country.  I failed miserably in terms of speech — changing my fake-British accent has been physiologically impossible — but in all other aspects, I have been largely successful except for a love of cricket and biltong, which are even more ingrained than my accent.)

What gets up my nose — and I cannot stress this enough — is when someone moves to a new country, and then sets about trying to change things to fit in with their former country’s ethos and their own background.

It would be like me moving here, and then starting a pro-apartheid movement to keep the races segregated, and trying to change the laws of the country accordingly.

And if that sounds ridiculous, then I invite you to consider efforts to create a parallel legal system of Islamic shari’a in Western countries like France, the U.K. and, yes, the United States.  But because Islam is a religion and not a loathsome artificial system like apartheid, we are supposed to defer to this effort because of the freedom of religion guaranteed by the U.S. Constitution, or because of a long-time reputation for tolerance (in the case of Western European countries).

The problem is that despite being based upon a set of religious beliefs, shari’a is not just a behavioral discipline, but a socio-political one.  Nowhere in Catholicism (at least, anymore) is it written that Catholics should (or even must) wage a holy war against non-Catholics without fear of reprisal at the hands of a Catholic court system.

Yet that is what shari’a not only implies, but demands.

And I’m not interested in hearing about “moderate” Muslims, either.  (The old not-so-funny joke about Muslims is that radical Muslims want to murder non-Muslims, while moderate Muslims won’t murder non-Muslims, but won’t mind if radical Muslims do.)

I have no problem whatsoever with immigrants congregating into neighborhoods of like background or ethnicity.  Like I said earlier, I understand that (even if I don’t agree with it).  What I won’t stand for is when these ghetto-dwellers somehow think that their little enclaves are somehow immune from the laws of the parent country, and are free to impose their own (transplanted) laws and customs on everyone who lives there, or even just passes through.

Think I’m kidding?  I invite young American (or British) women to walk through a predominantly-Muslim area wearing a tube top, no bra and a miniskirt, and see how they’re treated.  What would get admiring glances or even wolf-whistles in their own community will get a far harsher response in, say, downtown Bradford in England or even parts of Dearborn in Michigan.  The same clothing choice, by the way, would get disapproving looks and even a muttered comment in an Orthodox Jewish area in Chicago or New York, but it would be unlikely to result in screamed insults, assault or even worse, attempted rape, as it would in the Muslim areas.  (And further:  in Islamic countries, a woman claiming to have been raped is more likely to result in the arrest of the woman — for “temptation”.)

And this is my problem with immigrants.  (I have mentioned Islamic adherents above because it is simply the most modern manifestation of this, but I see absolutely no difference between Muslims and the Communists who came over from Eastern- and Western Europe, who set about trying to spread their foul ideology into their host country’s body politic.  We used to deny Communists entry to the U.S., but are unwilling to do so with Muslims because “religion”.)

It’s all very well to afford comfort and sanctuary to the “huddled masses, yearning to breathe free” (an inscription on a statue, by the way, and not official State policy).  It is another thing altogether to allow the huddled masses into your country, only for said huddled masses to set about changing all the good things about your country into something not only alien, but repugnant.

And for those who take issue with the word “repugnant”, allow me to offer but two words in rebuttal:  honor killings.

When it comes to immigration, I’ve always believed in the FIFO (fit in or fuck off) principle.  I’ve lived by that precept ever since I arrived here, and I see no reason why anyone else should refuse to do so — even if by doing so, your “sacred religion” is offended.  If your new country is all that offensive to you, fuck off home.


And by the way:  I can say things like the above because of the freedom of speech afforded to me by the Constitution of my adopted country, in the shape of its First Amendment.  If what I say is that offensive to you and you feel obliged to resort to other ways to demonstrate your disapproval, allow me to remind you of the existence of its Second Amendment.  I may have left behind a lot of Africa, but a response of violence to counter violence was not one of them.

A Touch Of Fall

I went outside the night before last to fetch something from the car, and… cool weather.  Okay, so it was close to midnight, so never mind, thinks I — I’m wise to Texas Weather Tricksies by now.

Then I went out yesterday morning at about 9am to run some errands, and… still cool.  In fact, I had to step out from the shade into the sunlight to avoid shivering.  When I set off in the car, I turned off the AC (for the first time since mid-May) and just cracked the windows to stay cool.

Wait, what?  Could this be Global Cooling Climate Warming Change©?

Silly rabbit.  By the time I turned to come back home, it was back to 92°F — that September Texas weather we all know and love.

I am so ready for the Fall to come.

It ain’t pretty, but at least it ain’t sweltering.

 

News Roundup

So let’s skirt the boundaries of good taste one more time, by looking at the news of yore.


In Britishland News:


...mostly at gas stations and cafe-type stores, so no need to panic.



...and you can fuck right off too, you unctuous, slimy piece of shit.

And it’s time to hear the call of EVERYBODY PANIC !!!! again:


...yeah, whatever.  Go and peddle your little scare stories somewhere else.  And:


...and are these experts telling us why and in which population the virus is spreading so fast?
#HomoSex

And speaking of monkeys, here’s the latest from The Great Cultural Assimilation Project©:


...borrowing tactics from TxGov Abbot and FlGov DeSantis, eh?  Yer welcome.


...well, somebody might as well use them.

In Election News:


...see, under the reign of World-Emperor Kim:


...nobody cares what you think, either.  Even if you did win the competition for “Most Likely To Have New Career on OnlyFans”.  And speaking of the inconsequential:



...any guesses which county in Texas?
#TravisAustinCommieAssholes #NoSurprisesThere

In Motoring Technology News:


...I’m so old, I can remember when the only “software” in trucks was between the drivers’ ears.
...yeah [sigh], I miss ’em too.

And in gloriously link-free 

…considering he’s already had two goes at cultivating your little garden of delight, I seriously doubt he’s missing anything.


...pay no attention to the envious assholes, Demi me old darling;  you look sensational and it’s been money well spent.

And that’s the back side of the news.

Don’t See It

In this article (thankee Reader MG), the author talks about the styling similarities between the Ferrari 212/225 Barchetta and the early Ford Thunderbird, and how the two cars were linked.  Here are the side-by-side pics:

Honestly, apart from the obvious ones (embedded exhaust pipes, spoked wheels and round tail lights), I think they’re about as different as can be imagined.  The T-bird is part of that era’s American obsession with chrome and fins (part of the jet/space thing) and has not a single aspiration towards airflow and streamlining, while the Barchetta is all flowing lines and grace, with minimal chrome fittings.

And let it be known that I don’t actually dislike the T-bird’s shape — in fact, I think it’s excellent and so much better than their later iterations of the model.  But I don’t see the cars as stylistically comparable.  (Of relative performance, of course, we will not speak.)

I will admit to being not much of an automotive-styling cognoscentus, so if you think I’ve missed something, feel free to enlighten me.

Tommy’s Tale

Anything produced by Jordan Peterson is worth watching.  His interview of Tommy Robinson, the bête noire  of British politics is very much more than that.

As Cathy Gyngell says of Robinson:

It also made me think of the many far more sullied characters on our political stage who have got away with it, and never been subjected to the across-the-board branding, silencing and curtailment of freedom he has been treated to. No epithet has stuck more effectively than those words thug, racist and far right have to him. You have to look quite far to find someone to whom you mention his name who doesn’t judge him so, who doesn’t assume he is the hooligan the press have told us he is, who doesn’t call him an idiot or simply display the distaste they feel for him on their faces. But ask those with these attitudes what they actually know about him and whether they have any idea of his story, and what his ‘beef’ is actually about they go quiet. They have no idea. Their judgement, as was mine in the past, is an unthinking one – based purely and simply on how the MSM cast him, and the fact he is actually working-class (unlike the elite politicians like Starmer so desperate to claim this background). This is a ‘tarring’ that is so universally accepted that anyone defending him in any way also risks being so tarred and outcast.

Of course no one ever sees him interviewed by the mainstream UK press or broadcasters: he is never allowed to defend himself, let alone be asked to tell his story. So there is nothing and no one to challenge the official Tommy characterisation as a law-breaker, inciter, thug or crook. Any out-of-context ‘angry monologue’ clips that people may have seen confirm their prejudice. It’s only when you hear his whole 20-year story that you start to understand it and empathise and are horrified by the cover-up. And understand his anger. There is such a thing as righteous indignation, and that without doubt is what Tommy feels.

The more the elite authorities want to suppress him, the more people like me want to know more about him.

And this was before the recent riots in the U.K.

This interview is quite possibly the most important insight into how the news is being shaped that I’ve ever seen.  Ignore that it’s primarily about a “racist” attack that took place in Britishland, because it concerns all of the news we’re being fed.

And by the way, if you start to feel the burn of anger when Robinson describes the fate of the hapless family, then you may begin to understand the background to the Stockport riots.