Europe and Migrations

deaf tuner

Ad Honoris
Oct 2013
14,293
Europix
@ nordicdemosthenes

Firstly, thank You for taking the time to reply so thoroughly.

I generally agree, with a couple of exceptions:

Tell me, do you think mr Conrad is an assimilated, working, proud citoyen de la république?
IDK if he's "assimilated", IDK if he's "working", IDK how "proud" he is of the République. But "La haine de la République" (hating the French Republic) isn't an exclusivity of the immigrants, or immigrant origin citizens. A French citizen chanting "nique la République" (F%%ck the Republic), a serial sexual predator, a far-left terrorist, all have one thing in common: they are not integrated in the society. The "Arab origin" in burqua isn't less integrated than the "pure French" militating for the Monarchy. Integration means a lot more than simply colour, religion, language. So:

not even supposed liberal democracies treats foreigners and native people the same.
IDK if You are referring to Conrad, or You are talking in "general".

If it's "in general", the real problem remains "foreigner". What's that, in fact? How long someone is "foreigner"?

Most of the perpetrators of attacks in France or Belgium are 2nd, if not 3rd generation. Are they "foreigners"? Legally, no. Legally, they're French or Belgians. Well, we can change the law, of course. But until we adapt the law to the new conditions, we cannot suggest other solution, "parallel to"/"outside" the law. Well, we can, but with the implications that that brings with.

a "pre-political we" [ ... ]We used to have that in Europe, more than most places in the world

Honestly, IMHO, thinking at "pre-" ,"used to have" is futile. It's past, it's gone, it's dead, and we can't bring it back, we can't fix it back to as it was. Because the human society changed radically: 50 years ago, a couple of guys talked about the idea of "global village". Today it isn't a speculative idea, it's a fact, we live into it. It's a lure to talk about "integrating", "assimilating" foreigners as we talked about it 50 or 100 years ago. Today, practically every single foreigner is at home in (almost) any place in the world: he has instant access to all is happening in his country of origin, it's in permanent contact with his family and buddies at home or elsewhere in the world. It's called "internet".

All I said it's not a plea for letting more foreigners in, nor a plea for leaving the things as they are. It's a plea for understanding that we live in a new world, and new solutions are needed. Looking into the past's solutions can't lead us anywhere. Except directly against the wall.
 
Apr 2018
979
Upland, Sweden
I've downloaded one of his works to my PocketBook. Seems interesting. I particularily like his focus on the "longue durée" and demographics, they seem to go together...

There is another (much more anglo-saxon/ jewish) thinker I follow a bit. He seems a little bit more shallow than Todd, but he is concerned with similar questions - from a less economically left-wing point of view. David Goldman. His blog is quite good for analyses of geopolitics (I believe the former head of MI6 called it the best source of long-term intelligence analysis available sometime during the early 2000s). He is a bit irrational when it comes to Israel I think (even though I myself tend to favour the israelis over the palestinians, I think one can sense a certain... bias.). Still, he is a very interesting thinker, and has some very interesting analyses on future demographic trends.
 
Last edited:
Apr 2018
979
Upland, Sweden
Nope: it's a meta-charge.

See
" ... On imagine ce qu’il dirait si, par hypothèse funeste, un rappeur blanc osait reprendre de telles paroles en ciblant des noirs. ... "
" ... We can imagine what reactions would be if a white rapper would dare using the same words referring to blacks ... "
Ah. Apparently it's not as bad as I thought.

Then I misread or misunderstood the
Well, not exactly - my point was more that there are limits to which any multiethnic society can be liberal and democratic to begin with, and that liberalism, the rule of law etc. are by necessity constrained by other factors if they are to function. This is contentious, I admit, but I still think the historical record points in that direction.

@ nordicdemosthenes

Firstly, thank You for taking the time to reply so thoroughly.

I generally agree, with a couple of exceptions:
No problem, and thank you for your kind words.

IDK if he's "assimilated", IDK if he's "working", IDK how "proud" he is of the République. But "La haine de la République" (hating the French Republic) isn't an exclusivity of the immigrants, or immigrant origin citizens. A French citizen chanting "nique la République" (F%%ck the Republic), a serial sexual predator, a far-left terrorist, all have one thing in common: they are not integrated in the society. The "Arab origin" in burqua isn't less integrated than the "pure French" militating for the Monarchy. Integration means a lot more than simply colour, religion, language. So:
Well, you are right that the way people act is of course more important than aspects like religion, colour and language on the individual level, but I am unsure if such a distinction can be made on the social level. Functioning liberal democracies in Europe containing large numbers of non-ethnic europeans and non-christians (bar jews) are a quite new thing in our history.

For example, take Charles de Gaulles (who began his life as a monarchist after all, but you are right - the historical circumstances were different) and compare with some of the interwar radical politicians. What values do they have in common? Do they have the same view of the revolution? And yet they are still both obviously french, right?

I think France, just like all Western countries (even the United States) has de facto been held together by ethnic community more than many French people want to admit.

IDK if You are referring to Conrad, or You are talking in "general".

If it's "in general", the real problem remains "foreigner". What's that, in fact? How long someone is "foreigner"?

Most of the perpetrators of attacks in France or Belgium are 2nd, if not 3rd generation. Are they "foreigners"? Legally, no. Legally, they're French or Belgians. Well, we can change the law, of course. But until we adapt the law to the new conditions, we cannot suggest other solution, "parallel to"/"outside" the law. Well, we can, but with the implications that that brings with.
I was talking in general. I think the fact that we have to ask us "who is a foreigner" in Europe is precisely the problem. Most times in European history the answer to that question were obvious, and it was during such times that liberalism, the rule of law and democracy arose here. Now it is not obvious, and we are (in my view) seeing all of these things retreating or being threatened. I think there is a connection.

This is precisely the problem in my view. The 2nd and 3rd generation immigrants you speak of are not clearly French (or Belgian - or Swedish for that matter) but they are not clearly foreign either. But just like you say, in the eyes of the law they are European nationals. What does this lead to? How can we adapt the law to these changing conditions as you say? I am not sure I can see any good ways of doing that, other than instituting much tighter citizenship requirements (perhaps not as tight as say the Japanese, but almost) and retroactively robbing people of their citizenship. This is of course not a good solution. It is not a liberal solution. It is not doable according to the current framework we have of universal human rights etc and would no doubt risk escalating social tensions in the short term, as well as probably some human suffering for some of our productive and well-assimilated migrants who might "fall through the cracks" of such a radical systemic change.

The other alternative is just to stop all immigration and hope that these people will become "sufficiently European" - perhaps try to change our societies to not be based on a common culture, ethnicity, etc. but rather shared "values". I don't believe this is a very good solution either, and I also think it is more than a little insulting to the native population who were, after all, not asked if they wanted these changes imposed upon them. Rather our politicians have in fact promised lowered/ stopped immigration for the better part of the past three decades, but not delivered. See Douglas Murray's description of this in "The Strange Death of Europe". So where does that leave us?



Honestly, IMHO, thinking at "pre-" ,"used to have" is futile. It's past, it's gone, it's dead, and we can't bring it back, we can't fix it back to as it was. Because the human society changed radically: 50 years ago, a couple of guys talked about the idea of "global village". Today it isn't a speculative idea, it's a fact, we live into it. It's a lure to talk about "integrating", "assimilating" foreigners as we talked about it 50 or 100 years ago. Today, practically every single foreigner is at home in (almost) any place in the world: he has instant access to all is happening in his country of origin, it's in permanent contact with his family and buddies at home or elsewhere in the world. It's called "internet".

All I said it's not a plea for letting more foreigners in, nor a plea for leaving the things as they are. It's a plea for understanding that we live in a new world, and new solutions are needed. Looking into the past's solutions can't lead us anywhere. Except directly against the wall.
I agree with you that the circumstances have changed, but I am not sure that the past does not provide solutions. Where else should we look? What other guides but history do we have? And also, what legitimacy does this new system we might create have? I mentioned that I have part Baltic ancestry, and well, after the fall of the Soviet Union the Baltic states are now stuck with a large Russian population (moved there by Stalin and successive Soviet leaders to russify the countries). Should they just say "Oh, okay, hey, the 25% Russians are citizens just like us, no matter that we were never asked if we wanted to share our culture with them, and no matter the positive discrimination they enjoyed during half a century." It feels insulting I think, and while the current situation with immigrants to Western Europe is not as clear cut (our populations had some ability to exercise political influence over the process after all) I think this situation is still the result of a political inaction, and broken promises to the majority population. Because of the taboo in discussing these issues and the ethnic self-segregation which has followed our majority populations have been isolated from the effects of immigration for a couple of decades. Is it really fair to ask them just to "suck it up"? I know in Sweden a majority if the people have wanted reduced immigration ever since the 1990s for example

Ultimately it depends on what you want, and your priorities. Is the ethnic/ cultural character of Europe more important than upholding liberal values in the short term? Or are the liberal values the only way towards harmony and prosperity in the long term? Here I think we might disagree, and while I certainly think we should try to be as humane and reasonable as possible, I believe the interests of the historic cultural majorities in Europe must take precedence, even if that hurts society in the short term and causes unfair treatment to individual ethnic minority members.
 

tomar

Ad Honoris
Jan 2011
13,365
Here is an example of Denialism at work

Is there anti-white racism in France?


There is no "anti-white" or "reverse" racism,because minorities have no power to transform the system to their own advantage.

Changing the definition of racism to suit the author's denialist agenda

Seeing how quick some politicians can be to stand for white people even if there is no systemic threat against them while they remain silent when actual people of colour like Adama Traore die in the hands of the police gives me pause

Said fine gentlemen (and in fact his brothers and extended family) is a jail bird who was fleeing the police and died during the arrest of some sort of cardiac arrest.... Fine example of racism

they condemn a music video that poses no real threat to anyone

so now its OK to call for a group of people to be hanged and their children killed in their kindergartens based on their skin color? I guess there are no limits for denialists
 
Jul 2016
1,236
Dengie Peninsula
My view is, " Do you want to help the world, or not?" Most of these people fleeing from war, lack of food, etc do/did not want to do it. On the downside, any relief we send them is stolen by Governments of their country as they do not actually give a "Flying" for their populace. Answer, Police the distribution. Put in a bureaucracy that will behave and persecute those who try to defile it. If we have to put in troops, sobeit. We may not get thanked by the individual corrupt governments, but you can set this off with the lives we shall save and avert the necessity of refugees fleeing their own countries.
 
Apr 2018
979
Upland, Sweden
Likely the evil german mastermind manipulated the unsuspecting others into this crime
My guess it was probably a "german" involved...

The sheer Emperor's new clothes like absurdity of the situation would be hilarious, if there wasn't actual suffering people involved. It's not just abiut denial either, it's about willfully distorting obvious facts which most Europeans know to be true. For example, when various political commentators talk of these kinds of brutal rapes as if there is no cultural dimension to it. Gang-rape is something historically associated with war-time crimes in Europe (like the Red Army in Germany for example), not something done by ordinary criminals in peace-time. The brutality of immigrant crime in Europe is something rather unique, compared with earlier periods.
 
Last edited: