Every now and again, the New York Times goes off message with an article as badthink-y as it is clear eyed. From time to time, the (((Editorial Board))) lets slip through a piece that does not stand for the propositions the Board believes it stands for. This article is the latest foray into the netherworld of confused agendas.
Black in Algeria? Then You’d Better Be Muslim
From our intrepid op-ed writer Kamel Daoud, we get a glimpse of how vibrancy is likely to play out when the faction in power is immune to the sting of historical oppression. Daoud presents the reader with a snapshot of Algeria, a case study in the grim future of multikult in a world wherein the mantle of power has been passed from far more magnanimous whites. . .to far less charitable Peoples of Colour. While Algeria has been at the forefront of sending her sons far and wide to colonize and culturally enrich the West, it appears that she has had to deal with a similar tsunami of vibrancy. This particular wave of cultural enrichment is of a decidedly sub Saharan flavor. Algeria is none too keen:
ORAN, Algeria — For a few years now, families of migrants from sub-Saharan Africa have been gathering at major street crossings in the large cities of northern Algeria. They come to beg for alms, wearing grotesque outfits: oversize veils for the women, even little girls; cotton djellabas for the men; prayer beads ostentatiously displayed. They say “Allah” too readily and misquote verses from the Koran.
Many black migrants, including those who are not Muslim, are deploying symbols of Islam to appeal to Algerians’ sense of charity. Why? Because poverty helps decode culture better than reflection does, and migrants, lacking shelter and food, are quick to realize that in Algeria there often is no empathy between human beings, only empathy between people of the same religion.
Ah, well then. It’s just religious discrimination, right? Daoud wishes this were the case, and makes his best efforts to frame the conflict as one of a purely religious nature. Nevertheless, it quickly becomes apparent that the problem is that of Berbers shitting on unwelcome blacks.
The situation wasn’t always like this. For decades Algerians mostly treated blacks with discreet aloofness; only recently has that turned into violent rejection.
Oh boy. How to square the circle when oppressed respawns as oppressor? What is the appropriately liberal response to clear evidence suggesting that, when left to their own devices, their downtrodden pets will begin to terminate each other? Blame Western interventionism, obvi.
There are no reliable official statistics, but many migrants here come from Mali, Niger and Libya, and their numbers have increased over the past few years, partly due to instability in neighboring countries, especially Libya, once a main hub of immigration from Africa to Europe.
Qaddafi warned you. Now his ghost smirks at your chagrin.
From a geopolitical standpoint, it’s clear that this analysis is correct. Destabilization notwithstanding, how does one explain the fact that the kill switch was so (literally) and quickly activated by the mere presence of a few thousand black Africans within Algerian borders? This suggests a propensity for anti-black antipathy that has long lain semi-fallow in the hearts and minds of many an Algerian-an outlook that predates the regional destabilization occasioned by the Benghazi affair. How could it be that diversity is failing so fantastically in Algeria, especially as we’ve been told that racism is the white man’s invention? Why is it that in the absence of those rascally white racists has a multicultural shangri-la of peace and mutual goodwill not taken root in Algeria? Our author provides us with a clue.
In Europe, migrants can try to play on the humanitarianism and guilty consciences of their hosts[.]
What’s this? Diversity in Algeria doesn’t work because “historical oppression” against blacks can’t be use as a cudgel with which to drub Algerians into submission to a globalist agenda? Is it that the absence of suicidal guilt for muh slavery and muh oppression means the presence of the will to survive as a people? Could it be that Algerians lack the propensity for outgroup altruism, the very propensity that is presently being used by
people like Algerians by those with interests adverse to those of the West to manipulate and exploit the West into accepting such individuals against its interests? Is it possible that this simple equation is applicable across time and space: DIVERSITY + PROXIMITY = WAR?
What questions! Our bold author skates past engagement with those questions and poses a few questions of his own with an eye towards laying the blame for Algeria’s racism problem squarely at the feet of those dastardly Europeans.
Yet these two forms of racism are related: Westerners deny (or accuse) Arabs, and Arabs in turn deny (or accuse) black Africans. Is there a causal link? Is this a domino effect of negation? Perhaps. In any event, the parallel, the mimesis, is troubling.
The lengths to which the author goes to overlook the most obvious cause of the problem in Algeria is astounding. Clearly the issue is not that the black migrants “aren’t Muslim,” as Algerians from the most secular to the archly conservative seem to have attitudes on the problem ranging from “expel negro” to “burn their settlements and kill them all.” The core issue is that diversity always foments conflict wherever it is attempted. People are evolutionarily inclined to favor homogeneous groups of like individuals and kinship networks. People are evolutionarily disinclined to enjoy existence in heterogeneous hellholes filled with a hodgepodge of people with which they share no ethnic or genetic bonds. Racial diversity, as one of the most obvious forms of diversity, tends to trigger the most extreme backlash once it reaches a tipping point.
Even more amazing is to observe how ruthlessly Algeria has dealt with its own migrant invasion in light of the continuous mewling from Arabs and their assortment of goodwhite lackeys to allow unlimited numbers of “migrants” into Europe. The message here is simple: (1) porous borders = failed state = national doom; (2) unchecked immigration of drastically diverse others is profoundly distasteful to everyone, even those in possessions of countries that would, objectively speaking, be better off nuked from space.
The West would do well to follow Algeria’s lead and treat the influx of interlopers accordingly.