A Politician’s Guide to Muslims

I get it, I know: politicians need to stay in touch their constituents, and that sweet, sweet nectar that is the Youth Vote–the crucial 18-24 demographic of people whose brains have not yet fully developed in the logical reasoning department but still have the right to vote by virtue of falling out of a vagina and stumbling through government schools for 18 years. You want to play to their most popular opinions, you want to throw up rainbow flags drop some fresh memes on Twitter. But what if I told you that you could save yourself all that work?

Let’s not mince words: Muslims are bad. Every single Muslim coming into your country is a wastrel, the “Good” (intelligent) ones left their countries something like three generations ago by their own merit; the Muslims coming out of Africa and the Middle East right now are the offspring of the least intelligent people who didn’t make the cut (which is only an IQ of 100, we’re not picky). These are the Muslims who left because all the (relatively) smart ones left decades ago and their countries went to shit afterwards, encouraging them to leave as well, and when they have children in your country, who then regress to the mean, you have a generation of unintelligent, high time preference, low IQ, Muslims mucking about. We don’t even need to get into their tendency to form enclaves that destroy community trust and economic velocity, you’ve heard all those statistics by now. Muslims are horrible, no matter how much you fake tolerance of them. But why do you have to fake it in the first place? Remember what I said about that malleable 18-24 demographic fresh out of public schools. They only like Muslims because you told them to. You told them that all people are born equal, that all cultures and religions are equal, that separation of church and state means no restrictions on religious sabotage. The current media struggle to cover up Muslim attacks throughout the West is a piss poor damage control tactic for the sake of ideological consistency, and it’s a ponzi scheme held up by the continual indoctrination of new kids in school. It’s time to hit the reset button on that crap.

I mentioned degrading community trust and loss of economic velocity. When those 18-24’s grow up and stop voting Dem/Labour/etc. those are the issues they care about. Trust me, we’ll be rolling back those suffrage rights soon enough and you won’t be able to ride the Young and Stupid Wave forever, it’s time to start thinking of the long-term. I say honesty is the best policy: teach them the truth about diversity, state-mandated equality, tolerance of hostile ideologies; show them how we tried and failed for centuries to make it work, and after they’ve enjoyed their secured middle class upbringing in safe streets alongside decent children of their own race and culture, they’ll pay you back in spades. You want a Muslim ban–be honest with yourself now. You don’t want a schism, you don’t want your nation descending into chaos because you are legally required to let Muslims live in it and do what they tend to do. “If I could just wave a magic wand and make my problems disappear … ” I’ll offer you the next best thing: Muslim ban. You want it? Then start preparing the voters to want it. I know it’s easier to just get the short-term approval and stay in power, but how much is that even worth–power over a ‘house divided’? You’re putting off the inevitable. I’m sorry you don’t want to hear, but there it is, and you’ll sleep a lot better at night when you’ve been honest with yourself, your constituents, and their children (who are browsing Twitter and Facebook and reading about how we should accept Muslims and terrorists) most of all.

Still not convinced? Bear with me. Ask yourself, “What’s the role of the government?” To refine the social state and market (behavioral or otherwise). Cooperation between people is exponentially more rewarding than every-man-for-himself predation. Your job is to get rid of glitches in the system that cost more than they reward (like thieves or invading armies). So what do Muslims reward us with? Well as we already covered they aren’t exceptionally bright, they’re below average really, so right off the bat they reward us less than our people do typically. They also tend to seclude themselves in enclaves of foreigners like themselves, and later generations regress even further as crime statistics of immigrant families show us, so cooperation is greatly impeded there too. They also degrade community trust which hurts cooperation pretty badly. Starting to sound like a glitch in the system right? Well people who are afraid of terrorists but still think we should accept Muslims will tell you the solution is more thorough vetting. Now that’s a pretty steep investment of time, money, resources, etc. Are Muslims doing anything to offset those costs? All our Pew Polls and similar polls in Europe have found that they tend to be abnormally permissive of suicide bombings, especially young Muslims (26% say bombings are justifiable even, and those are your middle class, American Muslims), so how can we distinguish the massive number of terrorists and terrorist sympathizers from the normal, low-IQ bunch? Well they all dress the same, they all follow the same religion, they all come from the same region, they all clump up in the same communities. Does a Muslim ban still sound like doing things the hard way?

After every Muslims attack, people are slowly beginning to no longer ask “Who did it?” They know. They’ll instead begin asking you “Are you still going to let Muslims stay in my country, around my children?” You need to have your answer ready, the Muslim in his bedroom building bombs and loading magazines has the element of surprise. You only get to react once.

2 thoughts on “A Politician’s Guide to Muslims

  1. Very persuasive—and most entertaining to boot. So far as the Muslim ban goes I am with you entirely.

    I was curious about this:

    “Ask yourself, ‘What’s the role of the government?’ To refine the social state and market (behavioral or otherwise).”

    How do you intend refinement of the social state?


    1. I think it’s an apt summary, which I borrow from Calhoun’s “Disquisition on Government”, what I consider to be one of his best works. He approaches it axiomatically:
      >All living things sense what affects themselves first and what affects others second
      >Therefor living things will tend to act in ways that benefit themselves first and others second, even at the expense of others
      >People also group together because cooperation is exponentially more rewarding than predation (the first question of ethics: why don’t I just kill you and take your stuff?)
      >The Social State, which exists BETWEEN all people, is the construct by which we not only protect everyone from everyone else, but also what we use to offload and reward the costly aspects of cooperation (the things you agree not to do in society, i.e. laws)
      >The Government or Nation State is OF and ABOVE all people, and is the means by which the Social State is refined and defended.
      In essence, it helps us all get along, because even though all living things are naturally inclined to act only in self interest, we get much further by working together. In addition to upholding laws of participation, the state offloads costs of cheaters and freeloaders. Going a bit further here: I am not against the idea of Republican government, but I believe it should be based on behavioral investment, not notions of natural endowment. Even in our modern Republics, the more involved you are in the administrative, social, or economic markets, the more laws (written or otherwise) you must obey: you have an increased behavioral investment, and should therefor reap greater rewards. That is to say, participation in government belongs to those who have sufficient investment in the state: people who are sufficiently intelligent to understand the state, people who are sufficiently industrious as to better endow the market, etc. Meanwhile, uninvolved people are typically protected by negative powers, vetos, etc. Even in Rome, the Patricians allowed the Plebeians to elect representatives which had veto powers over the Patricians’, and it works a lot better than you’d think at a glance. (This was the idea behind the American Articles of the Confederation, as well as the administration of the Kingdom of Poland for centuries.)


Leave a Reply

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

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com 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