Cultural Incompatibility

I spent the last weekend in Miami Beach. Miami Beach is like the Land of the Ubers: open the app and there are always at least 25 drivers swarming the area & ready to arrive in under 3 minutes. One of my drivers was a young Syrian kid who’d just finished his MBA and was in the process of searching for full-time work. He was a conversational fellow, and we soon began a conversation that inevitably turned to the topic of the current events taking place in his country. I expressed my sympathies for the Syrians’ plight and asked him what measures he thought would be necessary for the country to move forward and reestablish some semblance of normalcy there. His answer left me slack-jawed:

“There is no hope. Syria is already gone. We may as well just finish it, if that means that we would be able to gather ISIS there, bomb them, and destroy them completely.” 

Now, I empathize with his anguish. I’m certain that sentiment came from a deep place of grief and frustration. It can’t be easy to watch as your country crumbles, besieged from within and from without. But this is precisely the attitude that makes the Standard Third World Immigrant completely incompatible with the First World. 

They would rather defect than fight for the preservation of their birthrights, their heritages, their ancestries.

They contemplate the utter destruction of their patrimony rather than mobilizing to expel the savages that have brought it to its knees and preparing for the future. 

These are bargains they’d be willing to strike. 

Such an outlook is so alien to the First World mind as to be completely incomprehensible. There is no question that if the U.S. were to come under attack in some WWIII/doomsday scenario, millions of Americans would take up arms and unleash guerrilla warfare upon the invaders, even if they believed that they had only a slim chance of victory. They would do this in spite of the reservations they may have about the country because they are fighters and patriots and because fundamentally, they believe in this country and in its principles.

By contrast, consider the Syrian kid’s position. It is one of defeat and resignation. If this is the attitude one has towards one’s own nation, how loyal will one be if and when one’s adoptive nation falls upon hard times or when there are no more gimmedats to be got? It is highly unlikely that such people will ever develop the sense that their new countries are worth preserving for perpetuity or that they are worth fighting for. These immigrants will never develop a sense of common history, common purpose, or common destiny. The new nation is simply a convenient host to be abandoned when a better host emerges or when the current host expires.

Could one imagine such a sentiment being expressed by anyone in the West or in the First World more generally? What if the Japanese adopted this defeatist attitude after the A-bomb? What if the U.S. adopted this attitude after the Revolution, or the Civil War, or during the Depression? What if Europe adopted this attitude after WWII or after any of the myriad wars waged across the continent throughout its lengthy history? These people didn’t flee. They didn’t abandon hope. They didn’t pray for the absolution of destruction. They rebuilt. They created cultures from the ashes. This is why they managed to achieve First World status while other countries, even ones substantially wealthier in terms of natural resources, have floundered.

A nation’s people are what make a nation either great or shitty. 

Replace the people, destroy the nation. 

This notion is completely lost upon the hoardes of cheering Western do-gooders.

There is a certain intrepidity, a certain nobility of spirit necessary to generate bounty and to create complex & durable civilizations that realistically speaking, few people in this world possess. The Syrian kid is a good kid, and I wish him well. Nonetheless, his comment demonstrated a poverty of spirit that instantly crystallized everything for me. The “European Migrant Crisis” will end in the end of Europe as we know it. It has broader implications for the First World as a whole. We are told that we are obligated to be arch humanitarians, to take in immigrant after immigrant as they face unimaginable hardship. But their hardship is totally imaginable and completely surmountable with time and with collective will. Have many peoples not endured hardship throughout history?

Were the U.S.’ formative years not ones of trials and hardships? Is European history not littered with examples of hardships and abject squalor? How did these civilizations become great? The difference lies in the manner in which the people responded to adversity. To import peoples by the millions to the West who do not share this general orientation is to destroy it by undermining and gradually eroding the cultural attitudes that made it the First World in the first place.



  1. I think the nature of Syria as a country doesn’t help. It seems to be a territory that was cobbled together out of a few fragments of the crumbling Ottoman Empire, rather than a nation state. It contains (contained?) separate areas where different religious tribes lived parallel lives. There were Christian sects, Muslim sects, Mandeans, Druze and Yazidis. They had more loyalty to their sect than to the country. Like Yugoslavia, too much of a convenient political construct, and not enough of a sense of oneness.

    Liked by 1 person


    1. Right. The kid mentioned that he was Druze. While I could tell that he felt some loyalty towards Syria, I got the distinct impression that his primary loyalties lay with his co-religionists. So nationalism is probably not a sentiment that he’s accustomed to feeling. So…bombs away. But this is precisely the problem with the current migratory wave into Europe. These guys don’t comprehend nationalism. The nation-state will always be subordinate to their religious loyalties. First and foremost, this is bound to create a huge problem on a continent that is increasingly atheistic, exerting more pressure on an already tense situation. Furthermore, it also means that the native stock is of these countries is being replaced by individuals highly indifferent to the continued existence of these nations, and who are liable to sell their host countries off by the pound if convenient.

      Liked by 1 person


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s