Somewhere in the early 4th century, 301 AD onwards, the roman emperor Diocletian tried to solve his problems with inflation. He ended up skipping money altogether. Instead he collected taxes in goods and services. But to make future “income” predictable he had to make sure no-one could change their profession to something “easier”.

“Diocletian restricted social and professional mobility. Peasants became tied to the land in a way that presaged later systems of land tenure and workers such as bakers, armourers, public entertainers and workers in the mint had their occupations made hereditary.” [1]

Sounds a bit like serfdom doesn’t? But surely, according to Marxism – that wasn’t invented by Diocletian was it?

The black swan

When learning about philosophy and science – a black swan early mentioned. The first – and most trivial – science we learn is this – if you claim “all swans are white” – then this can be disproved by pointing to a single black swan.

And today – the world of politics and political and social sciences is packed with black swans.


To quote Wikipedia [2]:

“Marxist methodology uses economic and sociopolitical inquiry and applies that to the analysis and critique of the development of capitalism and the role of class struggle in systemic economic change.”

Perhaps pseudo-scientific rubbish is a better description.

To this author Marxism appears to be the product of men who’ve gone bonkers in over-analyzing pretty trivial developments.

In Das Kapital – while mostly rubbish – to Marx’ credit he describes very well how the labourers, many children, were suffering under extreme – almost lethal – conditions in the early phases of the industrial revolution in England. Yet, this development is nothing more than that – a development.

What came first – the car – or the trafic laws governing where and how cars can drive?

Every law and regulation we make is made – after – it is observed that it is needed. So it was for cars, and the laws and regulations for said vehicle arriving after the first car.

The answer to Marx’ observations on labour conditions is of course not revolution and ridiculous class theory – but the observation that new laws are required to deal with a new development. The children of the industrial revolution simply needs laws to regulate their work – maximum working hours, minimum pay, and dignified treatment.

And as time passed – such laws slowly came to be passed – most often with help of labour unions.

In the capitalist world – enormous material and social success came. In the poor Marxist countries – Gulags and worse.

Marxism and its descendant “theories” survive only by being religious rather than scientific. Science looks for observations which can prove a theory false (black swans) – and plenty of such observations exist to falsify Marxism – the success of the West for example – where poor classes were almost non-existent. Countries like Cambodia, Soviet Union, communist China – they don’t come across quite as social and economic successful.


The problem in today’s academia – especially softer disciplines (typically socio-something, or political-something) – is that it is no longer science. It’s pseudoscience – mostly nonsense.

People leave suburbs with many immigrants – and “scientists” then speculate that this is due to natives dislike of immigrants or racism – of course economy is mentioned – people live where they can afford to. What they should have done was to interview with full anonymity those who left, and get statistics on the actual reasons why they left.

Explanations – recipes – for how immigrants behave, and ghettos form, should be accepted or discarded depending on whether they fit the facts – all the facts. And a problem facing those who’d like to blame poverty, inequality, The West, heritage from colonial times etc., is a handful of nations and people proving them wrong. People from the Philippines, Thailand, Vietnam, China, South-America.

Many of these countries have been colonies, subjected to racism and exploitation, yet immigrants from these countries are extremely successful in the West, and have often a crime rate lower than the native population in the countries they come to. They are also known to marry into the native population, and quite often sacrifice even their names for easier to pronounce western names.

Compare that to immigrants from honour cultures; while one group goes out of their way to blend in with the natives, the honour culture goes out of it’s way not to fit in. Keeping arabic names, sometimes arabic dress, and intentionally keeping a distance to the native (Christian) population.

To present a social theory not based on the pseudo-scientific Marxism, lets take a look at the numerous ghettos being formed in Europe today.

Reproducible ghettos

While I never bother to cook myself – I am aware that if you follow a given recipe you get the same result every time. This has been proven successfully by numerous chefs and restaurants throughout mankind’s history.

In other areas than cuisine reproducible results are also seen – one is for example the 2nd generation immigrant ghettos in France. Some sources now state there are more than 700 of them in France – spread across the country. They’re called no-go zones.

Other countries show the same type of ghettos being created at an alarming rate – like Groruddalen in Oslo, or a large number of ghettos in Sweden.

We must admit by the sheer number of ghettos, and their geographic spread, as well as spread in time of creation – they are reproducible.

Hence a recipe must exist – how to create a ghetto – and how to explain why 2nd generation immigrants are so different from 1st generation immigrants.

Honor based creation of ghettos

The political left – Marxism – explains everything with two words – money and equality. If everybody has equal amount of money and are otherwise equal – then all will be fine.

This does not really fit the facts seen across the globe.

Immigration from Muslim North-Africa to France is one peculiar example. It started in large numbers during and after World War II. Ex-Muslim soldiers stayed on to work – only work – in France, and sent money back home. At the time France needed more workers – and more came.

And they loved France. They had fought for France. Many had died for France.

This was the first generation immigrants from Muslim countries with an honor culture. They stayed, and their children and grandchildren grew up in France. And ghettos were created.

The main mechanism is described in the essay “Absence of Malice” [3].

1. Import a large amount of people from a Muslim honor culture. In this culture anger and violence is seen as socially acceptable to increase your honor and standing among your peers. This is practiced at home and in the community in which these immigrants chose to live – separated to some extent from the native French themselves.

2. Children and grandchildren go to school – and segregation begins. How many angry and violent kids are needed to dominate a class? One is probably enough. And we have many.

3. Native French people see their own childrens problems in school, outside school, everywhere. The French have a Western culture – anger is frowned upon, violence strongly opposed. Confrontation – unthinkable. They can only vote with their feet.

4. The native French starts to leave the neighbourhood.

5. The lack of native French pupils in the neighbourhood takes its toll – the remaining immigrant pupils are not exposed to French language, or French thinking. They lag behind native French in perhaps 1-2 years in terms of education.

6. The first generation children of immigrants complete compulsory school – lagging 1-2 years behind similarly aged native French.

And they get no jobs, or only the jobs at the bottom of the ladder. And they are angry – and they start to hate France. And they stay – unemployed – around the neighbourhood.

Cars start to burn – just by themselves. It must be a design error.

7. And the native French leaving the area is escalated with every new class finishing school.

The ghetto has been created.

The signature RUBB has lived in Groruddalen in Oslo for many years – and he has described some of the same issues as in the “recipe” above. The violent – racist (!) – behaviour of the immigrants force the meak Norwegians – who cannot apply anger or violence – to leave in hordes. In fact – they all leave. The location of Groruddalen becomes over time a ceded area. An area left to foreign people.

Notice especially how the model above explains why there are no problems with the first generation immigrants – it’s being raised in France which can be the creator of problems.

Detroit – murder capital of USA

It appears the left in the USA loves Detroit. Its such a loving example of how capitalism is wrong. Capitalism screwed them all – and in the end the whole city went bankrupt.

However, there is perhaps other explanations.

There are numerous articles online on why Detroit went bankrupt. All the leftist ones of course point out the Marxist nonsense – capitalism is at fault.

But those articles have commentator fields. Ordinary people are allowed to have their say. And on some of these articles, there were actually more than a thousand comments.

And many of them were from eye-witnesses – people who had left Detroit – and who said in plain language «why» they left.

And here is another engine of grief – a different method of creating a ghetto.

Blacks in the south of USA was until the sixties subject to apartheid and discrimination. It was only with the civil rights movement from the late fifties onwards that things were finally put right. But while the discrimination was in full force, large numbers of black moved up north for work – especially to the successful town of Detroit – with its many factories – in need of workers.

So to the engine of grief.

1. Move said black discriminated people up north – to Detroit – looking for work and a better life – from 1960’s onwards.

2. Culture clash ! The southern blacks hate/dislikes whites – with good reason – and the whites – they live in peace with other northern blacks who feel “white” – and does not understand what’s going on.

3. The southern blacks start violence against whites. The whites start voting with their feet. They care for their children, and they – among murders, rapes, violence – start moving out of Detroit.

This is that the commentators under the articles confessed – they left Detroit – because they were scared at the violence coming to their neighbourhood.

4 . Repeat – more and more people leave. Its not white flight – it’s affluent flight. Also the northern blacks chose to leave.

5. For Detroit – there is even another accelerator. In 1967 there are black riots – causing many deaths and many destroyed businesses. And the affluent flight increases.

6. Repeat. And the angry, violent children in school makes certain that they hardly learn to read or write.

Its interesting to see people completely misunderstand the population numbers of the city Detroit. In 1950 it had 1.8 million people. Today it has about 700 thousand. Hence like 60 percent left. Yeah – and the remaining 40 percent somehow changed their skin color to black?

The 1.8 million in 1950 was mostly white. They all left. 100%. The whole city was in practice replaced with a new population.

I guess it’s not politically correct to make this claim – whatever the truth might be. Today the city of Detroit have around 700 thousand people, half or more illiterate. Statistically there should have been tens of thousands of engineers in such a large group of people – not to mention the doctors, teachers, and other highly educated people.

Instead it’s more like a ghetto.

“Jeg frykter at Malmø kan dø som by. Hvem vil vel bo et sted der gangstere som bestemmer? Jeg ser ikke bort fra at byen får samme skjebne som Detroit. Det manglet heller ikke der på fancy byggeprosjekter og framtidsvisjoner etter at mye av industrien forsvant. Resultatet er at sentrum er fullstendig forslummet og dominert av svarte. Kriminaliteten er skyhøy. Ingen hvite våger seg dit mer. Alle med penger har flyttet ut i forsteder langt unna byen.”

Comment from someone about Malmø in Sweden. Does it need translation?. Apparently I’m not the only one to observe similarities.


Why are these ideas presented in this article? I do not work in social or political sciences? Right or wrong, the ideas above should have been scholarly created, published, and discussed. The people who leave the ghettos and Detroit should have – anonymously  – been interviewed – the facts should have been assembled and statistics analyzed. Yet, no such effort has been made – instead all has been “explained” using pseudo-scientific Marxist rubbish.

Our politicians should have been presented with models of how some cultures have problems mixing – hence might have been guided to stop and reverse immigration from incompatible cultures to western countries. They should have been educated as to which cultures can actually succeed in the West. And interestingly enough – the succeeding cultures might be comprised of people with darker skin and more different appearance than caucasians (e.g., Filipino/Thai). So it seems it’s not about look and race – it’s about culture and religion.

How politicians behave similar to religious fundamentalists

Some years ago I witnessed some highly interesting and informative online debates between quite well informed atheists and christians on various bible subjects. For one group of christians – Jehovah’s Witnesses (JW) – the debates changed over time. As they found themselves constantly on the losing side (JW has predicted the end of the world numerous times – and clearly failed) they changed dramatically in the “debate”. Instead of debating – as they originally did – it became name-calling and avoiding an actual mutual debate.

A worrying similarity exist in journalism and politics today. People who express different opinions are described as spreading “hate”. The “debate” has become about the fact that others have different opinions – not about what validity these opinions have. A good example is when Document came out with its second publication – and one newspaper managed only to make an article on its front-page drawing. The actual content was ignored.

It seems Marxism and whatever has come from it an engine of grief as well – producing pseudo-science – instead of actual usable models of how different groups of cultures interact – which scientifically is an interesting subject.

Quo Vadis?

Now that the ghettos are here – what to do about them? It seems clear that some cultures cannot be mixed – it will cause nothing but ghettos and grief.

Tomorrow will be worse.

These engines of grief amplify each other. The muslims feel “victims” – the marxists – agree – and it becomes illegal to criticize Islam. The one thing they need – critique – is no longer legal. The powerful attacks on Christianity – which improved (!) the Western world – and Christianity itself – are not allowed  when it comes to the third monotheistic religion.

It is perhaps time to realise that it is not in our power to make immigrants succeed – we can only predict success or failure – depending on what country and culture they come from – and what culture they bring with them.

If the recipes above were to be accepted as (mostly) correct – they do clearly indicate that immigration from certain cultures should simply be banned, while immigration from other cultures are far more acceptable.

So what about the people in the ghettos today? In France as well as other countries they are kept alive – and in place – by welfare. Nothing is done to improve their situation. Perhaps nothing can be done?

Perhaps it is time to consider «divorce». Painful perhaps – but in the long run – better for both parties.