Thoughts on Yookay Rape Gangs

dirty harry leftism

I beg my paid subscribers for article ideas. If you’d like me to beg you for article ideas, please become a paid subscriber and send me a message.

Today’s topic is the United Kingdom, and the European Union, and its relationship with leftism and elitism.

On an emotional level, I am disgusted by Europe. I am happy that Anglo-Americans won WWII, because I think Anglo-Americans had the best chance to create a unified global world government. The Soviets couldn’t conquer America; the Germans couldn’t conquer America; therefore, the Americans had to conquer the world.

That said, the only possible expression of European culture which would be formidable or admirable in the 21st century would be a kind of Neo-Romanism. That is, a single people, a single culture, a single language, and a single religion reigning supreme over all the petty and parochial provinces of the empire. Napoleon nearly achieved this, but like Alexander, his project ended tragically.

If I could go back, I would have advised Napoleon to conquer Crimea and St. Petersburg, to steal Russia’s warm water ports, and establish a series of naval bases on the Black Sea which would help supply a future French invasion in the springtime. A winter invasion of Moscow was ill supplied. Had Napoleon been more patient, and had a more logistically sound plan for carving up Russia, then Europe could have been united under a French-speaking emperor, with French law, French culture, and it would have been glorious.

Unfortunately, Napoleon failed, and this left France completely spiritually exhausted. After Napoleon, France never regained its strength, and it went into terminal decline. This is not for demographic or biological reasons, but for ideological and religious ones. Napoleon inspired such greatness that his defeat left France impotent and listless. The same problem afflicts both Germany and Russia today. Germany, because of the failure of Hitlerism, and Russia, because of the failure of communism. There is no more authority, because all faith has been dragged through the mud of disenchantment.

It is only in America that faith remains, in the form of wokism, which has never been defeated, and reigns supreme. Conservatives, by my definition, fall somewhere on the woke spectrum. Take Trump and Elon’s embrace of Caitlin Jenner. What else can we call that, except woke? I don’t remember Obama, Romney, Bush, or Clinton ever embracing a man with a boob job.

I am not delineating wokeness in an ideologically formal or precise way. Eric Kaufman’s definition of “the sacralization of racial and sexual minorities” is more specific, and generally more useful. But here I am trying to describe the manner in which America has greater ideological fervor, in general, because Americanism has never been defeated. The struggle between left and right is a struggle for which America will conquer, not the question of whether or not America should even exist.

In Germany and Russia, the attitude is moribund, enervated, post-nut clarity writ large. It’s very depressing.

Had Hitler conquered Europe, this would not be the case. Europe would be united under an expansive German culture. Germanic colonies would be established everywhere at the expense of other nations. Everyone would learn German as a second language, as they today learn English. Every nation would be expected to provide millions of soldiers for the SS, for a state of perpetual war, both internally and externally. Whether or not Nazi ideology could have stabilized and lasted much longer than 1945 is a different question. But whatever the Nazis lacked in terms of rationality and tolerance, they did not lack in terms of aggressive, self-assertive, confident faithfulness.

Had Stalin conquered Europe in 1945, all the way to Paris, communism would have been injected with new life. Here too there would have been a struggle between left and right, Stalinists and anti-Stalinists, but a communist Europe would have had the benefit of the centrality of Russian culture providing a cohesive core. Europe today has no such core, and thus it is empty and void of vital spirit.

I annoy British people by saying this, but the United Kingdom is a province of the American Empire. This is true by any standard of history. We have fought together in every single war for 100 years; we share the same political system of parliamentary democracy with a left-right two-party system; we share a financial system in London and New York.

Imagine during the time of the Romans that there was a tribe known as the Sabines, who spoke Latin, fought alongside the Romans, shared the same ancestry, shared the same political system, and used the same coinage. There were such tribes, such polities, at various times in Rome’s development. Yet if we went back and spoke to the Sabines, they might object at times to being referred to as “Roman.”

We are not Roman; we are Sabines! We are an entirely different people!

Yeah, yeah, yeah, whatever. Petty nationalism is fake and gay, and I do not care.

I do find cultural differences and folklore to be cute. Irish people have nice accents; their architecture and mythology is cozy; I like their dance and their music. But what is nice and cozy and cute does not rule the world.

This is my broad view of the Anglosphere in relationship with Europe; that the United Kingdom is something like a combination of New York City and Alabama. London is a great city, with no coherent culture, and the rest of England is relatively poor and overwhelmingly white.

I’m not saying this to be edgy; this is the data:

As you can see, if you remove London from England, the rest of England is as poor as the poorest American state, Mississippi. This is especially striking because England minus London is 90% white, while Mississippi is only 55% white. England without London is a profoundly poor and backwards country, much worse off than Germany, the Netherlands, or Scandinavia.

This is largely because London has been brain draining the rest of England for 200 years now, so anyone who remains in the countryside is dumber than the dumbest Mississippi redneck.

Brown Rape Hordes?

source

The first thing we have to establish is that only 31% of UK’s immigrants are from Africa or the Middle East. Let’s compare this to the Nordic countries:

source

In Sweden, 27% of immigrants are MENA, and 10% are Subsaharan, for a total of 37%. This data is from 2019, before the mass migration of Ukrainians to the west, which further dilutes the MENA/African percentage of immigrants.

As of 2021, only 16% of British residents were born abroad. This is slightly higher than the 14% of American residents who were born abroad, but not by much.

Physicalization

Right-wingers refer to immigrants as rapists because they have a secret desire to physicalize their emotional problems.

For example, I was recently speaking with a woman, and she wore a COVID mask during our Zoom call. When I asked why, she said “it’s for my safety.” The implication is that I was going to use ClearviewAI to identify her name and address, show up to her house, and physically harm her. The reality is that “safety” in this case was a physicalization of an emotional fear, the fear of being judged and rejected.

In the case of migrants, the fear that white men have is that they are going to be emotional humiliated by becoming a minority, and losing their national pride and identity in the process. But rather than confronting this problem directly (because that is scary and admitting vulnerability), they instead pretend that migrants are rape-machines, raping errbody up in here.

They believe that immigrants are climbing in windows, snatching people up, and raping them. This is not correct.

What is happening is that the 31-37% of migrants who are Afro-MENA are touching girls in the swimming pool; they are forcing themselves on drunk girls; they are enticing white teenagers living in orphanages to sneak out for sex.

There are of course examples of migrants straight-up grabbing and gang raping 12 year olds; you don’t need to show me the news stories, I have seen them. These stories are salacious and capture the imagination, but they do not reflect statistical reality.

There is much criticism of the UK and EU from the right, claiming that “migrant rapist hordes” are raping all the children. This is a hysterical claim without data to back it up. It is true that migrants rape much more frequently than natives, but the native rape rate is so low to begin with, that it is not difficult to exceed.

There are many school districts in America which are majority black. If you as a white person send your daughter to one of these school districts, her risk of being raped is probably as high or even higher than if you were to surround her with Afro-MENA immigrants in Europe.

The difference between America and UK/EU is that America is much more racially segregated. If someone does send their daughter to a majority black school, which we call “bad schools,” everyone knows that the blame lies with the parent for not choosing a “good school.”

In UK/EU, the situation is similar, in that if you are a parent living in Tower Hamlets, and you choose to send your kids to school there, then you are guilty of neglecting your children. Any reasonable parent gets the fuck out of there and sends their kids to a normal white school.

There have been attempts in Sweden to desegregate schools, but these aren’t very successful.

In general, if you do not want your daughter to be raped, it is fairly easy to avoid that outcome. The only people who do not avoid this outcome successfully are poor drug addicts who are probably abusing their kids already. Middle class parents are not allowing their daughters to be raped.

All of this is ugly. I have been told directly by women traveling in England that they were accosted by a Pakistani man on the bus and shown porn on his phone. This was an unfortunate situation, and in a perfect society, this man would have been deported to Haiti. England is not a perfect country.

My problem with sexual harassment is when lower class, ugly, weak old men do it to upper class, beautiful young women. I have also been sexually harassed by crusty old gay men, so I know how unpleasant it is.

I have visited no-white zones in London, where there are no white people except for the police and firefighters. 100% of the residents are Pakistani Muslims. I never felt unsafe; I was never accosted; I walked freely in the streets and purchased kebabs. I’m sure if my parents sent me to the local school, I would be bullied for being white.

My parents would never do that, so it is not even something I could fathom. If my parents did send me to a majority Muslim school, or majority black school, or majority Mexican school, where I was bullied, I would hate my parents for being so low agency as to neglect me in that way. I would resent my fellow white kids for not ganging up and enacting extreme acts of defensive retribution.

When it comes to racial bullying, I don’t think there is any moral limit to what is an appropriate response. If white kids are being bullied, I expect them to defend themselves by any means necessary. If the white kids refuse to defend themselves, and cry instead, that is a problem with their religious upbringing, not with the immigrants. They are modern gay, and modern gays will always find occasion to allow themselves to be victimized, and never stand up for themselves.

Racists claim to believe that traits are in-born, but when it comes to white kids allowing themselves to be pushed around, they suddenly become environmentalists. “It’s not the kids fault; they were brainwashed by liberalism!” I do not buy this. I was always a liberal as a kid, and when blacks attempted to bully me, I did not allow that. I would understand the hereditarian position to be that there is a gene for dignity, and a gene for cowardice, and these genes express themselves in the heat of the moment without regard for “brainwashing.” Of course hereditarians do not accept this, and make infinite excuses for pathetic behavior.

The proper response to ethnic hostility is fight or flight. Either inspire fear in the opposition, or flee to better pastures. Allowing one’s self to be victimized, and then blaming the government, is reflective of terrible character on all fronts. At some point I have a hard time sympathizing with people who refuse to help themselves.

It is a false dichotomy to say things like, “In America, we would never accept brown rape hordes, but in Europe, they accept this, because they are humiliated cucks.” In both America and Europe, there is a similar celebration of brown athletes in football and soccer. There is segregation. There are more non-whites in America, but also a greater degree of segregation.

The average white person in America has 90% of their daily interactions (peers, teachers, cashiers) with whites; in Europe this is a similar situation. Neither country is especially cucked or based in this regard. Neither country is much greater or lesser in white ethnocentrism or racial pride.¹

There is probably much more rape of white women by non-whites in America than in the EU or UK. In the EU/UK, it has been sensationalized and made into international news; in America, that is just another evening at a college party. If a white woman is raped in Mississippi, we collectively shrug our shoulders and say, “she paid the toll,” or some other form of victim blaming. In Europe, however, the white women are always pristine Valkyries, bravely fighting off the brown hordes with sword and shield. Reality is more complicated than this.

Often times what happens is that a white woman, or even a group of white women, make friends with immigrants, and they party with them, and eventually one of the women is isolated (as her friends go home early, perhaps) and she is abused. There are situations in which white woman are attacked at random, dragged into bushes and raped, but this is rare and has been met with significant police response.

In general, Europe employs many more police officers than America.

source

There is a weird dynamic in Europe where the police exist to harass far right groups which does not exist in the same way in America. This boils down to the 1st Amendment being especially unique. In Europe, if you make the wrong Facebook post, you will end up in jail. In Europe, the cops pay more attention to far right groups than migrant crime. In Europe, the cops do not have guns, and they do not shoot violent criminals on sight.

But one can travel Paris, Munich, Berlin, London, Stockholm, and all European cities, and never be assailed or assaulted in the same way that one can easily be victimized in Detroit, Chicago, New York, Baltimore, or Washington DC. America is simply much more violent than Europe, even when we account for all the immigrants.

Black immigrants to Europe are less violent than black Americans when we adjust for childhood environment and income.

Here’s some data. Let’s look at Angolans. Angolans have a “suspect rate” of 3.5% in the Netherlands, vs 0.61% for “natives.” (2022) Suspect rate means percentage of the population who have been investigated for a crime. Now let’s compare this to American statistics:

The black male imprisonment rate is 26% for the 1991 cohort, as opposed to 6.2% for whites. This means that black males in America are 4.2x as criminal as white males in America.

Going back to the Dutch data, the ratio is 5.7x when comparing Angolans to Dutch. However:

• White Dutchmen are much less violent than white Americans

• Angolans were worse than other blacks. Blacks from Ghana only had a suspect rate of 1.8%, which comes out to a ratio of 3.0x.

Assuming a median of 4.4x, black immigrants in the Netherlands are only slightly more violent than native blacks in America, which is astounding, given that these people were raised in the poorest countries on Earth, while black Americans are raised in one of the richest country on Earth. We should expect that black immigrants in Europe will do some assimilation, and their crime rate will reduce.

The right-wing obsession with rape is a fetish and bears little relevance to solving the deepest issues of our time.

Should we recoil from rape?

Rape is a terrible, ugly thing. But so is suicide, overdosing from opioids, and all other sorts of abuse.

I try to speak with a diversity of people, to learn about their experiences and their lives. I am surprised at how many people are inhibited, not by a lack of intelligence, but by severe emotional issues. None of those issues involve non-white crime. I have never heard any white person tell me that their life was destroyed by non-white rape or non-white violence. I have heard many stories of divorce, and drug use, and emotional abuse, and neglect. I have heard stories of children raised by parents who hated them, mistreated them, and ignored them.

When I think of evil as a pie, I think that rape and anti-white violence is a small part of that pie. That doesn’t meant that it is excusable, or acceptable, but that if I am trying to reduce the ugliness in the world, it would not be a good use of my time to prioritize racial violence as the #1 priority.

That said, there are political reasons why one should consider the problem of racial tension, given that a state which is unable to manage relations between its various populations loses legitimacy. If brown rape gangs roam the streets, then the state appears weak, and this allows foreign powers such as Russia to easily sow dissent and confusion. The AfD is a nakedly pro-Russian party which receives support because it exploits the weaknesses in the German mainstream.

I would like to see Europe abolished in favor of a single culture. This does not mean that some regional differences might not survive - - although most Irish people speak English, there is a sizeable minority who cling to Gaelic. Good for them! But in general, Europe should speak one language, have one army, and one culture. When you are feeling touristy or nostalgic, you can go wear some Lederhosen, or dance around the May pole, or whatever else is thought to be so special and unique about each separate culture. But if Europe is to be a great power, rivaling America or China, it needs to shed its divisions and gain a strong center of gravity. “Nationalism for all peoples” is the cry of the weak and downtrodden, not a strong and assertive idea.

Immigration helps serve this purpose by reducing the differences between European countries and helping to form a basal “European culture.” At the same time, this approach is risky, because an oppositional force comes in the form of Orban and AfD and the rest, who wish to revitalize the petty nationalism of the 19th century, which will only weaken and divide Europe further.

The War in Ukraine was a great gift to the European ideal, because it created a source of mass immigration, but without the “brown rape gang” problem. For this reason, it is necessary to antagonize Russia further and expand the scope of the war, to cause an even greater movement of peoples. Through mixing and immigration, a general European identity can arise, capable of overcoming Metternich.

I am pessimistic about this. Europe is trapped between extremes, unable to go either way. If Le Pen won in France, and AfD won in Germany, the result would be a divided continent, dependent on Russia, and eventually dependent on China. Europe can only become globally competitive when it smashes all barriers between its constituent cultures, as America has done. Even with the aid of mass immigration, I do not think Europe is capable of this.

You see this sickly phenomenon in Scotland, for example, where nationalism exists as a leftist protest vote against the Tories. It exists in Catalonia too, and assumes the national identity of Canada. This petty leftism is the worst of both worlds, erecting barriers where there need be none. All of Europe is infected with the Scottish sickness.

Both Hitler and Trotsky were correct to understand that Europe would either stand united, or fall divided. The continent cannot survive globalization without a common language, army, and ideology. Separate nation states cannot coordinate effectively. China and America are too powerful to resist.

Some nationalists claim that they recognize this problem, but they always promote petty nationalism anyway, trying to have their cake and eat it too, the best of both worlds. They always underestimate the sickness of petty nationalism, which is like fecal matter. You cannot split the recipe between sugar and shit and expect it to come out decent. Petty nationalism must be ruthlessly uprooted if Europe is to survive at all, and not be divided up into American and Chinese colonies.

I do not think Europe has the will to accomplish this feat. It would have taken a nation strong enough to bully the others into submission, which Napoleon and Hitler and Stalin all failed to do. Such things cannot be “agreed upon politically,” but require sheer force.

Since Europe is sick and divided against itself, I only hope that America can secure as much of the continent as is possible, and immigration may be helpful toward this purpose. Immigration bolsters the usefulness of English, and the American identity is more easily exported to a multi-racial society. On the other hand, Russia and China can exploit racial tensions and promote anti-American feeling by pointing to the effects of immigration. In America itself this playbook is used, so that the “dissident right” prefers Chinese or Russian rule to that of the CIA.

Power

The 21st century presents a number of unsustainable questions which must be resolved. It is not possible to indefinitely extend the present arrangement of powers; some will be destroyed and swallowed by others.

Russia, for example, cannot continue to exist as an independent power from China. It is too small, demographically and economically and militarily, to avoid falling into China’s orbit. The Russian leadership class is too corrupt to resist Chinese bribes. China could buy Russia for a few trillion rubles, and it is already in the process of doing so. Russia will cease to exist as an independent state, reverting to the medieval period of eastern domination.

Europe faces similar questions. If Europe continues down its current path, 100% of young people will speak English. This is not a historically “normal” thing. When Iberia became Latin speaking, it became Roman. When one country forces other country to speak its language, that is a form of colonization with political consequences.

Europeans are exceedingly concerned with Trump, just as they were fascinated by Obama. JD Vance has aligned himself with the AfD; Democrats will align against it. American presidents are no longer neutral with respect to European internal affairs, but are partisan. The American political system is a global one.

Female Agency and Pakistani Rape

source

Imagine America was hit with a cyber attack on our power grid. Prisons plunge into darkness. Prisoners ransack the cafeteria and plot to break out. In the midst of this chaos, a naked woman wanders into the prison and assumes the position of downward facing dog.

Does she deserve to be raped?

No one deserves rape, not even rapists. No one deserves rape, even people who wear a sign around their neck that says “rape me!” Consequentialism and retributionism are wrong. Not even Hitler deserved to be raped. Two rapes do not make a right.

However, what if Bonnie Blue wandered into a prison, stripped down naked, and wanted to be used and abused by the prisoners? According to Aella, such a fantasy is normal and natural. As long as the safeword is never used, it wouldn’t be rape, just a very kinky, extreme, rough orgy.

What if Bonnie’s ability to consent, her agenic volition, was somehow impaired? What if she made the decision to strip down naked in a prison while drunk or high? What if she made that decision 8 years ago, when she was only 17? In her impaired, underdeveloped mind, she might think that it would be a good idea to strip down naked in a prison. However, in reality, that could be a terrible decision that she would come to regret, that would traumatize and damage her.

Parents and the state act as guardians whose job is to protect children from their own acts of masochism. Unfortunately, it is impossible to perfectly perform this function.

Kids turn 18 and make destructive decisions. They end up dead, or cause permanent harm to themselves or others. Being a brain dead zombie is worse than a blaze of glory. There are many such zombies, the result of drug addiction, stalking the streets of North America.

Everyone has their own threshold of tolerance for how much paternalism should be exercised to save people from themselves. Even if it were possible to save everyone from drug addiction and suicide, saving the most self-destructive elements of humanity from their own deep-seated tendencies might simply inflate the problem and kick the can down the road.

If deeply troubled people have deeply troubled kids, spending billions to keep all these deeply troubled people alive might result in an endless cycle of suffering and misery. Perhaps one generation is enough.

I support aggressively segregating criminals from the general population. In fact, I would support the deportation of all welfare users, citizen or non-citizen. I do not defend Pakistani rapists. In obsessing over Pakistani rape, the right-wing is revealing itself as the warmed-over leftovers of the left.

Leftism is the sacralization of the victim. Leftism got a huge boost 2,000 years ago when a group of Messianic fanatics sacralized a crucifixion victim. This cult spread like wildfire, and was eventually brought under control by the Roman authorities, who decided “if you can’t beat ‘em, join ‘em.” Christianity was reformed by a series of elite councils into a conservative, hierarchical, authoritarian state religion.

Leftism is Christianity stripped of its Roman and Germanic veneer — it returns Christianity to its roots by ripping off the ivy of “tradition.” This truth offends Christians — who believe that Christ was a conservative rather than a revolutionary — and it also offends leftists — who believe they owe nothing to Christ.

The reason why leftism is such a powerful and persistent idea is because it allows for the possibility of the legitimization of the state on a universal basis.

• If a state legitimizes itself on the basis of wealth, it makes an enemy of the poor;

• if it legitimizes itself on the basis of piety, it makes an enemy of the heretic;

• if it legitimizes itself on the basis of force, it makes an enemy of the peaceful.

However, if a state legitimizes itself on the basis that it protects the widow and the orphan, the slave and the victim, then the state gains universal appeal. The only people who would oppose leftism are predators, social Darwinists, Nietzscheans, demons, and sadists who wish to abuse the weak — at least, that’s the popular conception.

Leftism undermines itself when it expands the class of the oppressor and oppressed to include entire races of people. When whites are oppressors, and Pakistanis are the oppressed, then an odd thing occurs: white begin to use the language of leftism to defend themselves against oppression. “We’re victims!” they cry. “We’re indigenous!”

The nationalist speaks of national rights, abuse, and Pakistani rape gangs. The far-right appropriates the leftist frame, wherein whites become the victims of an oppressive state which sponsors, funds, and covers up for rape.

None of this is to deny the material reality of the crimes, to claim that the victims deserved to be harmed, or suggest that Pakistanis are being unfairly maligned. The point is that the right wing is strongest where it is most leftist.

Yarvin popularized the phrase “Cthulhu swims left,” and I don’t read enough pseudohistory to understand him. But at the surface level, the phrase “Cthulhu swims left” invokes a feeling of inevitability. Statism is inherently leftist, and a furtherance of state power necessitates a furtherance of leftism. This is true even on the far right. If you want to nag and protest in favor of “white rights,” the most effective way to do so is to cast whites as the victims, and non-whites as the aggressors. In other words, racist leftism.

Right-wingers sometimes describe this as judo, “using the logic of the system against itself.” What they fail to realize is that by appealing to leftist logic in order to attack the system, this only strengthens the underlying faith in leftism at the deepest level. Hence the term “deep left” is a description of the logic of leftism as a self-perpetuating mechanism which feeds on its own cannibalization. Every attempt to attack the left from the right is itself couched in the language of the oppressed and oppressor.

I’m expressing this in abstract terms, but the point I am making can be felt intuitively. Everyone feels that we are being enslaved in an electro-feudalist social-credit bureaucracy, and endless Matrix of e-girl bathwater and holographic labubus. This remains the case even as Trump wins “victory after victory.” It doesn’t matter if he brutally deports one million immigrants to El Salvadorian death camps; the logic of leftism marches on.

Putinism is not a solution to this cycle; it is merely a slower train headed for the same destination. Watch Sigma Boy and tell me that Russian culture is not on the same exact trajectory as America. Maybe they are stuck in 1995; give it 20 years, and I am sure there will be some Kazakh president of Russia, talking about an “inclusive Russia,” and so on (that is, if Russia is not already a Chinese satrapy by then).

shaved head lesbian in BDSM gear with 12 year olds, GROOMING children.

Conclusion

We live in an unprecedented time of sexlessness. There is less rape occurring today (per capita) than at any other point in human history. Viewing the success or failure of the state through the vector of rapes per capita, as to whether we have 1% or 0.5% of the normal historical rate, seems oddly pedantic, hysterical, and somewhat fetishistic. The lady doth protest too much.

But people are like this, and so it is reasonable to advise that elites become more performative on this topic. I would not mind seeing Keir Starmer overseeing the personal execution of various criminals.

Suspects of crimes should be deported, not simply convicts, and instead of deporting them to their country of origin, I think they should be deported elsewhere, like Haiti. In the case of Europe, it would probably be easiest to deport them to Mauritania. I would also be happy for Europe to take a much more restrictive immigration policy toward males, and allow unrestricted immigration of females. Those policies are a fever dream, but they would be the best to achieve a reduction in violence while maintaining the pressure necessary to produce a more globalized culture.

Bill Clinton proved that the left can fight crime, which deflates the hysterical basis of right-wing energy. Bloomberg also achieved this in New York.

I object to the assumption that Europeans are uniquely cucked with respect to rape and non-white crime. Americans tolerate an extreme amount of crime, allow shoplifters to get away with $500 of theft, allow the BLM riots, allow 50% of murders to go unsolved. Europe has much better policing, and blows America out of the water in this respect. This is because Europe has more cops per murder.

source

What Americans tolerate in terms of lawlessness is not the norm in Europe. It is becoming more the norm, perhaps, but this is largely due to a sudden burst of refugees between 2014 and 2017. Since 2022, most immigration has been Ukrainian in origin.

The average European is not being raped on a daily basis; this crime does not register. You can travel as a female tourist in Europe, and you will be much less likely to be raped there than in any major American city. The claims of the online right are ludicrous. Most Americans commenting on this subject have never been to Europe; they feel no need to, because slop accounts have convinced them that Europe is “dangerous” and “overrun.”

These accounts are boosted by Israeli, Russian, and Chinese bot networks, all of which have their own agendas. Israel hates Europe because it is pro-Palestine; Russia hates Europe because of Ukraine; China hates Europe because it wishes to undermine NATO.

I have said nothing here about the GDP, because I don’t think immigrants to Europe increase GDP. Welfare is too high for that to occur. Any gains to the productivity of firms by increasing the supply of labor are sucked up by an additional tax burden. This is an area where the Europeans have a disadvantage with respect to America.

Finally, with regards to the TV license and other bureaucracies, I only regard these as sane when they are directed toward removing poisons from the food, air, and water. Restrictions on speech also provide some benefits, even if they are a net negative.² The worst of European regulations is the protections afforded to workers, which are a killer to industry, and are the reason why Europe is, despite being bigger than America, falling behind in tech.

These regulations are part of one big “European progressive package,” which is why I prefer neo-liberalism. There is nothing “elitist” about protecting workers from being fired.

1. Ok, UK/EU isn’t a single country, but you get the point.

2. (I cover my thoughts on freedom of speech here)