Sunday, September 06, 2015

“Just Do It!”—Kant and the Immigration “Crisis”

“Act only according to that maxim whereby you can, at the same time, will that it should become a universal law.” Immanuel Kant, in Grounding for the Metaphysics of Morals, 1785

Or, to put Kant’s categorical imperative in contemporary language: “Do the right thing!

Just do it! Don’t think, don’t hesitate, don’t wonder whether or not you will benefit from doing “the right thing,” because if you think or wonder, then your action will be impure – nay, immoral! – and won't make you a moral person. It might be praiseworthy by others, but the esteem you might be held in by them should not be a primary consideration. The thought should never enter your mind.

If you hesitate, that means you were thinking. Thinking is not allowed.

In fact, your wanting to be a moral person by doing “the right thing” will also disqualify you from being a moral person. To be a moral person, your doing “the right thing” must be scoured of all personal interest, it must be eminently and literally disinterested, expecting no kudos, no laurels, and not even personal satisfaction for having “done good.” When and if you see the “right thing” to do, you must know it somehow beforehand –– that it is a priori the “right thing to do” – and take action and just do it.

If “doing the right thing” means leaping trance-like off a bridge without a Bungee, so be it. Others will mourn your passing, and reflect on how moral a person you were. You did your duty.

So, if you’ve ever wondered why Europe is committing suicide by allowing itself to be invaded by hundreds of thousands of Muslims and other “asylum seekers” or “refugees” from the pestholes of the planet – in fact, by inviting them to swarm over hills, dales, and borders to infest their countries with their “culturally enriching” primitive practices and behavior – the answer lies in understanding Immanuel Kant’s philosophy of selflessness and self-sacrifice and its death-grip on Western leaders and Western culture. The ostensive morality is altruism; the underlying morality is Kant’s nihilistic code of “just doing it” because it is “good,” even should one’s own consequent death or the extinction of one’s country be a certainty.  No thought is required, necessary, or desired. Only a feeling that action is the “right thing to do.” To Kant, a feeling is a tool of cognition, a sense organ.  

One supposes that “doing the right thing” like a robot would elevate one to sainthood, just as Islamic jihadists “do the right thing,” as commanded by the Koran, and kill themselves while killing others, to achieve “martyrdom.”  

We know, say the political leaders and champions of enforced multiculturalism, that by allowing these barbarians to settle in our countries, it will change the identities, character, and nature of our countries beyond recognition, repair, and reclamation, but we must do it, because to not do it would be inexcusably immoral. Those political leaders, of course, will expect their indigenous citizenry to “do the right thing” in the most disinterested and tolerant manner, even while they foot the bill for their own conquest and are exposed to the criminal depredations of the barbarians. If they resist, they can be called “Islamophobic,” “racist” and “bigoted.” Ordinary citizens thus can be shamed into submission.

These same political leaders would never think to accuse the barbarians of racism, bigotry, intolerance, and a proclivity towards crime.

On the other end of the bookshelf are Kant’s two ponderous Critiques. The ultimate test in a refutation of Kant’s noumenal and phenomenal worlds, on the other hand, is to ask whether or not any sentence or statement in either of his Critiques or in his Grounding of the Metaphysics of Morals is exempt from the distortions he claims are inherent in his phenomenal thesis.  How can one know, when he writes, for example, that “the moral strength of a human being's will [is] in fulfilling his duty,’ he is stating just that, when in reality – or in the reality of his noumenal world – it might be actually a recipe for bouillabaisse or beef stew or instructions on how to repair a carburetor? Are printed words exempt from his phenomenal rule? Are Kant’s books exceptions to his own rules? And if we cannot know the “real” meaning of his printed assertions – if what we read in print is merely a distorted rendition of some ethereal, crystalline entity somewhere out there beyond our ken – then what can we know? Was Kant’s quill “real”? The ink? The paper? Or were they merely distortions of what they “really” were beyond even his perception?

Have these questions ever occur to Kant? Has they ever occurred to any of his champions and teachers in academia? For if Kant’s works aren’t exempt from the conditions governed by his noumenal and phenomenal thesis, then his works are all gibberish, what is being communicated via our distorting senses is rubbish. And if his works are exempt from his rules, then Kant was some kind of savant who, like Mohammad, received his knowledge of the noumenal world magically from the Transcendental angel Gabbo the Verbose who visited the caves of Königsberg, Prussia. Or perhaps Kant was a space alien from that alternate, noumenal universe sent here to confuse the human race.  

However, to quote from a book review that questions the inclusion of Kant as a champion of freedom and reason, citing Kant’s purpose to save religion and a codified submission to all things mystical, I wrote:

Religion was what he wanted to save from the onslaught of reason. He appropriated the term “reason” and then proceeded to eviscerate it of all meaning in two brain-stultifying Critiques…. Kant’s Critiquesof Pure Reason and of Judgment – are what he is best known for, and through those works Kant has had a profoundly pernicious and deadly influence on the course of philosophy and politics in the 19th, 20th and 21st centuries.

Immanuel Kant was a malevolent leprechaun who offered man a pot of lead coated with arsenic.

Robert Spencer of Jihad Watch asks: “Meanwhile, no one is bothering even to ask, much less answer, one central question: why is it incumbent upon Europe to have to absorb all these refugees?”

Spencer identifies what Europe’s political leaders refuse to see.

Approximately 104,460 asylum seekers arrived in Germany during the month of August, setting a new record. That makes 413,535 registered refugees and migrants coming to Germany in 2015 so far. The country expects a total of around 800,000 people to seek asylum in Germany this year. And that’s just Germany. The entire continent of Europe is being inundated with refugees at a rate unprecedented in world history. This is no longer just a “refugee crisis.”  This is a hijrah.

Hijrah, or jihad by emigration, is, according to Islamic tradition, the migration or journey of Muhammad and his followers from Mecca to Yathrib, later renamed by him to Medina, in the year 622 CE. It was after the hijrah that Muhammad for the first time became not just a preacher of religious ideas, but a political and military leader. That was what occasioned his new “revelations” exhorting his followers to commit violence against unbelievers. Significantly, the Islamic calendar counts the hijrah, not Muhammad’s birth or the occasion of his first “revelation,” as the beginning of Islam, implying that Islam is not fully itself without a political and military component.

To emigrate in the cause of Allah – that is, to move to a new land in order to bring Islam there, is considered in Islam to be a highly meritorious act. “And whoever emigrates for the cause of Allah will find on the earth many locations and abundance,” says the Qur’an. “And whoever leaves his home as an emigrant to Allah and His Messenger and then death overtakes him, his reward has already become incumbent upon Allah. And Allah is ever Forgiving and Merciful.” (4:100)

Why is it incumbent upon Europe to have to absorb all these refugees? Because Europe is the captive of Kant’s categorical imperatives, that’s why. According to Kantian ethics, it is indeed incumbent upon Europe to “do the right thing” and welcome its colonizers, its destroyers, its conquerors. It’s the altruistic thing to do. How could anyone question altruism? Viewing the scale of rapes, murders, harassment, welfare costs, and destruction wrought by the barbarians in all these countries as mere “phenomenal” phenomena  – critics of Islam and Muslims offer a “distorted” view of thing, don’t you know? They’re just Nazis – Kantian-bred political leaders see instead a kind of noumenal Nirvana of cultural “diversity” for having done their “duty.”

In closing, I cede the floor to Ayn Rand, who, in her essay, “For the New Intellectual,” explains what Kant really means by duty and his whole mare’s nest of non sequiturs.

The arch-advocate of “duty” is Immanuel Kant; he went so much farther than other theorists that they seem innocently benevolent by comparison. “Duty,” he holds, is the only standard of virtue; but virtue is not its own reward: if a reward is involved, it is no longer virtue. The only moral motivation, he holds, is devotion to duty for duty’s sake; only an action motivated exclusively by such devotion is a moral action (i.e., an action performed without any concern for “inclination” [desire] or self-interest)….“

She quotes directly from the horse’s mouth:

“It is a duty to preserve one’s life, and moreover everyone has a direct inclination to do so. But for that reason the often anxious care which most men take of it has no intrinsic worth, and the maxim of doing so has no moral import. They preserve their lives according to duty, but not from duty. But if adversities and hopeless sorrow completely take away the relish for life, if an unfortunate man, strong in soul, is indignant rather than despondent or dejected over his fate and wishes for death, and yet preserves his life without loving it and from neither inclination nor fear but from duty—then his maxim has a moral import” (Immanuel Kant, Foundations of the Metaphysics of Morals, ed. R. P. Wolff, New York, Bobbs-Merrill, 1969, pp. 16–17).

While you may love life, Islamists love death, as they so often claim, and they are willing to be “moral men” – by Kant’s measure – and live long enough to kill you, and entire Western nations.

They just “love” doing it.


Steve Jackson said...

Ed. In the case of Germany, I think it is guilt over what happened in World War II, which no one will let the Germans forget even though hardly a single German alive today had anything to do with it. Merkel has admitted as much. When's the last time Putin has been asked about Stalin? (Putin was a commie party member, I believe, and Merkel was never a Nazi party member.)

And this whole Nazi business isn't limited to the left, it's prominent in Objectivist circles. Take Craig Biddle:


If by “We have a right to our culture” opponents of immigration are speaking of a right to preserve the racial makeup of their culture, then what they seek is not to protect American culture but to “achieve” something on the order of Nazi culture. Nothing more need be said about that.


The only culture to which anyone can have a right is a culture of respect for and protection of individual rights. Fortunately for those who love and want to preserve American culture, the principle of individual rights is the basic principle of that culture; respect for that principle is an essential characteristic of a true American; and foreigners who immigrate to America, for the most part, embody that characteristic.

The “We have a right to our culture” argument against immigration is at worst unspeakably evil and at best an argument for open immigration.

Note the package deals here. First, contrary to Biddle, a "culture of freedom" is not primary - it's built on certain things such as individual responsability that aren't common in the world (Ed Mazlish has talked about this). Second, no one is arguing that you have a right to a culture any more than you have a "right" to a job. You have a "right," however, that your government doesn't actively take steps to subvert what's left of your culture through things such as PC education in schools and mass immigration of unassimilatable Muslims.

Edward Cline said...

Take Craig Biddle? You take Craig Biddle. I stopped reading his publication ages ago, after he wanted me to rewrite a column that fit his agenda, just as I no longer publish on Capitalism Magazine after my column on Bruce Jenner was removed, my past articles "archived," and after someone fiddled with the Rule of Reason site to stop people from reading the Jenner column.

Steve Jackson said...

I think Angela Merkel should be prosecuted for treason. She knows that almost half of Germany's prison population is immigrant. She knows that allowing tens of thousands of sexually frustrated young Muslims into her country will create a rape epidemic.

There was a movie in 1960 starring Sofia Loren called Two Women. It concerned the French North African troops occupying Rome. They just loved to rape. Women had to seek sanctuary in the Vatican. The pope has called for every church in Europe to take in a couple families. Hey if the church no longer has a problem with pedophilia, it has one now.

madmax said...

"If by “We have a right to our culture” opponents of immigration are speaking of a right to preserve the racial makeup of their culture, then what they seek is not to protect American culture but to “achieve” something on the order of Nazi culture. Nothing more need be said about that."

Pretty much all white Americans before the 1960s believed that race was a crucial component of a society. America was founded as a free white man's republic. Even Rand herself expressed her ideal society as an all white society. Every character in her novels is white with the exception of the Chinese draftman in the Fountainhead. Rand may have used universal language but she had a love of European society and culture. She even glorified Aryan physical features which many Leftists have criticized her for (recently both Heller and Burns criticize her for it). So Biddel is labeling as racist what would have been normal at any time up to the 1960s.

What pisses me off about the Objectivist gurus (and most of the rank and file) is that they won't even consider the possibility that race and heredity matter for cultural concerns. And further, they accept the Left's narrative that any sentiments which are positive about the white race must mean that you are equal to a Nazi (and even then Objectivists do not have any deep understanding of World War 2 and why the Nazi's went in the direction they went in. Peikoff's book never even mentions the connections between Jewery and socialism or the fact that the Jews were the revolutionary elite of the Communist movement that was killing Christian peasants by the millions; ie the Holodomor).

Biology is definitely a factor in the rise of European society. It is also a factor in explaining why the North East Asian world has adopted free markets and experienced prosperity but the African world has not. IQ, sexual selection strategies (r/K), testosterone levels, brain size, etc.; these things are all real. Objectivists want to say they are pro-science but they are like Leftists; ie blank slate creationists. The argument that concern over the racial makeup of a society renders you a Nazi is just another form of the "ad hominum". There are many studies that show that multi-racial or multi-ethnic populations *always* lower societal trust and cohesion. This is not mindless racism but a legitimate expression of fear that results from mixing different races in the same geographical area. Robert Putnam's "Bowling Alone" covers this. But my guess is that Biddell probably lives and works in predominantly white areas so he is clueless about the rest of the country. But those white areas won't remain white for very long when the Left gets done with them.

Now, it may be that you could have a multi-racial society with a limited government libertarian framework. But that is a project for a much future timeframe, and I would argue that it would be best for European nations to achieve liberty in the context of all or mostly all European societies first. Then spread liberty to the black and brown world (that won't be easy). Allowing North America and Western Europe to lose their white majorities will be suicide for the West.

Biddle is clueless about human nature and history. He and the other Objectivist "intellectuals" are like children playing with weapons they have no idea the power of. He has no clue that the political policies he is championing, open immigration, will directly result in the destruction of that which he claims to value and will also be instrumental in ushering in a total race war which is the likely future of this country. He doesn't see that a war on white people is brewing. Look at what we have seen in the last few years. A black uprising is occurring in America (they are openly waging war on the police) and a Muslim one is soon to occur in Europe. Do Biddle, Binswanger, Armstrong, et all even watch the news? I can't fathom their ignorance. To me they are no different to leftists.

Steve Jackson said...

Well, the genes for intelligence will probably be discovered within 10 to 15 years. Even now, the genes that control for brain development have been found and they vary from race to race and affect differently the parts of the brain that are associated with intelligence. Something tells me that Charles Murray will be owed a big apology. I hope he is alive at the time.

There was an op-ed in the NYT and the writer was bemoaning the fact that East Europeans aren't too keen on getting Muslim immigrants. He pointed out, however, that they have the experience of the Roma (Gypsies) who haven't assimilated for centuries. I think they approach 20 percent in some regions. They are mostly Christian but they still haven't been able to assimilate. (I'm curious if Binswanger, et al. would acknowledge that their low IQs might have something to do with a small population group favoring first cousin marriage, but that's racist and Nazi I guess.)

A big problem with Europe is the low replacement rate of the real Europeans. Even if a German couple might want to have children, I can't imagine that the thought of little Hans going to a Muslim dominated school sparks the maternal instinct.

I wish Trump would talk about refuge resettlement in the USA. Maybe he has.

madmax said...

I think I saw Trump make a statement that while he would not allow Mexican immigration, he would accept Syrian refuges. That's bad. He too is subject to the out-group altruism that has dominated the West.

Rand was in large part right with her thesis, ie that Christian altruism was secularized by Kant and post-Kantian philosophers and that this morality has come to dominate the European world. She didn't understand the difference between in and out group altruism and in her time the Left wasn't the anti-white, anti-male demonic force that it has become. But I still agree with her main ethical analysis of the decline of the West. Its too bad that today's Objectivists don't expand on it and use it as a powerful tool to analyze the increasingly anti-white hatred that the left is fomenting. Its so obvious when you know what to look for.

When I read what the Western European leaders are saying regarding these Muslim invaders, I see how suicidal the ruling class of Europeans has become. It makes me think that perhaps European people are biologically weak in the evolutionary sense. They have no sense of self preservation as a group. I don't think that the North East Asians could ever accept out group altruism and the racial self loathing that whites do. There just may be something wrong with whites. Even as much as I love Rand and the politics of individual liberty, I can see how if you are rationalist with individualism, it too leads down the same path as Leftism. Binswanger would allow the world to enter the borders of America. He'd let in all of Africa and the Middle East and the HIspanic world. That is one of the top advocates for liberty essentially being far more suicidal then even top Leftists.

Sadly, I don't have any solutions for how to pursue liberty in an non suicidal way without taking race into consideration. I don't think it can be done. The vlogger "Libertarian Realist" comes closest to what I consider to be an essentially right approach; advocating liberty but within a shared "genetic infrastructure" which doesn't necessarily have to be racial. He calls himself a "libertarian bio-nationalist" which he admits is a mouthful. I don't know if Rand's philosophy will have a future as it is written. She may have a future legacy as an important figure in the Classical Liberal progression, and many of her philosophic ideas may have influence. But Objectivism along with libertarianism strike me as too suicidal to have a future. Individualism needs a proper set of parameters which no thinker has given it yet probably because not enough is known about biology. But libertarianism and Objectivism are too prone to suicidal rationalism. I see this more clearly the older I get. America is browning in the context of a virulent Leftist ideology that hates white non-liberals and wants to punish them. And Objectivists are totally blind to this. There is something wrong with that movement which ultimately is traceable back to Rand.

Steve Jackson said...

There is something about the open immigration position that makes people believe strange things. For example, we are told the problem isn't immigration, it's multiculturalism as if one doesn't feed off the other. Binswanger believes that if we went to war with Iran we could allow unlimited Islamic immigration and terrorism would end in the West!

Steve Jackson said...

Or to take another example, Yaron Brook said recently that Muslims were raping in Sweden because Swedes are a bunch of "wimps." Well, like the Rotherham situation, it is partly to be blamed on law enforcement, but this is what happens when you import a rape culture.

Steve Jackson said...

I believe Trump has clarified his position and said that we should not take in any migrants. No one in the mainstream media will point at that it looks like 75% of these immigrants are men, generally in their 20s it seems. Where are the old women and children if this is all about war?

It's interesting that Hungary says large numbers of Muslims will threaten its Christian culture.

Even the Gulf States know that these migrants have nothing to contribute.

Edward Cline said...

Yes, even the Sauds and the Gulf States realize that these punks mean nothing but trouble. But the Sauds are offering to build 200 mosques in Germany, nonetheless.

madmax said...

70% of these migrants are men. But they could import their families later which is what I think that Germany's immigrant laws provide for. In any event I believe the more scary statistic is that their average age is mid-20s, compared to the average age of Germans which is mid 40s. Jesus, that alone spells the end of Germany as a European nation.

Hungary's Prime Minister Victor Orban has been very heroic in his defiance of the Euro-Left. The funny thing is if you look on a map and trace a line down from Finland, you see an interesting pattern. The former Eastern European countries or countries formerly under Soviet rule are all totally white; they have resisted the open immigration / racial dispossession plans that the EU has implemented in Western Europe. This leads to the conclusion that the official state ideology of North America and Western Europe is more evil than the soviet ideology of the Cold War era.

And the Saudis must be laughing at how pathetic Europeans have become. I mean at least the Muslim war-lords of antiquity had to actually defeat European armies in battle. Today the Europeans are willingly, enthusiastically surrendering themselves up for slaughter. At some point within 2 generations, all of Western Europe will resemble Bosnia in the 90s. This is so terribly sad and yet very few are concerned with it who are not alt-right wingers. Objectivists seem obsessed over the Iran deal. If America were to attack Iran now and disrupt that country you would get the Syrian debacle only magnified. I have no solutions but I would love to hear some. But the Objectivist position of invade the world and invite the world is insane. Incidentally that is the same position of mainstream Conservatives and Republicans. That is not good company to keep. That should trouble Randians.

As for Swedes being "wimps". Well they're Leftists but how can Brook on one hand admit that a leftist society weakens its men and then on the other hand argue for open immigration? Why should the Swedes have to suffer through the violence and loss of their society to Muslims? Brook should be arguing for Sweden to abandon its immigration of non-Europeans as a matter of self-preservation. But he doesn't do that because he's a social constructivist. To him Sweden's prosperous society has nothing to do with actual Swedes but with abstractions. So since all people are basically the same and only philosophic ideas matter then what's the harm in open immigration? All right liberal ideologies are going to have to deal with the flaws in that reasoning.

Steve Jackson said...

Brook was asked recently if Hispanic immigrants were so hard working, then why do they have such high rates of unemployment and high school drop out. He said it wss because of the poor quality public schools they go to. So the poor performance of Hispanics has nothing to do with their culture and the raping by Muslims is due to wimpy white Swedes. If mainstream Objectivists are anti-left, I'd hate to meet a true Leftist.

Edward Cline said...

An excellent recap of the roots of Europe's invasion "crisis" can be found on Gates of Vienna here.

Edward Cline said...

And here's another gem from Gates of Vienna. Paul Weston, the author, was arrested by British police for reading Churchill's estimate of Islam and Muslims in public.