[MememyselfandIJK]

Really ? What planet are you living on?

Earth. What about you?

The media has been left wing for many years now.

What Americans consider "left wing" is center-right in most countries.

[Albert]

@Kaiserschmarrn
The article really shows how most migrants motive to migrate is economic. These people are not motivated to migrate because they want to preserve their lives, and they are avoiding danger. Mainly it is because they want to have better economic (material condition) circumstances.

[Kaiserschmarrn]

@Kaiserschmarrn
The article really shows how most migrants motive to migrate is economic. These people are not motivated to migrate because they want to preserve their lives, and they are avoiding danger. Mainly it is because they want to have better economic (material condition) circumstances.

Some argue that as long as someone flees a war torn country they are refugees, regardless of whether they move on from the first safe country or not. I'm obviously with you on this: once someone starts travelling from safety to get to a more prosperous country, it's difficult to see how they are "fleeing" from anything other than bad economic circumstances.

As for people moving from the Baltics to Western Europe, I think this should surprise nobody. The redistribution agreement is at this point pretty much symbolic anyway, considering it only covers 160,000 people

As far as I know, Italy has seen an increase in arrivals lately, and last time I checked Austria has been preparing for the army to control the border to Italy.

[noir]

Does anyone know if all Paris looks that these days, or just some sections?

[noir]

A leading UK alternative news blogger is blocked in Germany

[Albert]

Migrant Kills Man in Hamburg Supermarket Stabbing, Six Hurt

[noir]

It won't change the mind of German elites, they knew they were importing stabby lot.

[noir]

Colonialists settlers invaders refugees parasites, you name it, demand to enter to Germany


Greece: Protesters scuffle with police as stranded refugees rally at German embassy

A number of refugees scuffled with police outside the German embassy in Athens on Wednesday, as they protested against delays that have prevented them from reuniting with their families in Germany.

Some 100 people marched from Syntagma Square to the German embassy, carrying banners reading “I want my family” and “Two years too much."

[Pants-of-dog]

Ah, @noir

Still misusing the word "colonialist", I see.

[noir]

Reverse colonialism

[Pants-of-dog]

Reverse colonialism

....is not a thing.

What does that even mean?

[noir]

‘Germany is a MESS’ Merkel tells Trump she REGRETS opening borders to migrants

http://www.express.co.uk/news/world/836 ... -australia

Did she actually say it?

[noir]

More to come

[Rugoz]

Are immigrants actually more likely to commit crimes than natives? If yes, which immigrants? Here's some evidence from Switzerland.
The crime statistics are for the permanent residence population for the year 2014. Illegals not included.

I limited the data to young males (<30 years old), because immigrants are overrepresented in that crime-prone group and including women and older people would skew the statistics in favor of natives. German-speaking people can play around with the app here. The attached picture shows the result.

West Africans are 8-9 times more likely to have been convincted of a crime in 2014 than Swiss natives. French and Italian young males are actually slightly more law-abiding.

[Political Interest]

This entire issue is being viewed in binary terms. On one side you have the extremely naive cultural leftists and middle class liberals who say everything is fine and that we need completely open borders. On the other extreme you have the far right who are encouraging anti-Muslim hysteria to unprecedented levels. Both sides are completely extreme and characteristic of the typical naivety and lack of perceptiveness that is so common among Anglos and Northern Europeans. Both sides also are dishonest and just want to advance narratives. They have replaced truth and careful analysis with narrative.

The effective reality is that there is nothing wrong with Muslims, but instead the mismanagement of the migration, the foreign policy of NATO countries and the insane beliefs of the Western middle classes (militant export of liberalism and fanatical devotion to multiculturalism at home). Obviously it isn't possible for Europe to accept such large numbers of people on a permanent basis but it is an issue of numbers as opposed to some sort of inherent fault of Muslims. Mass immigration to Europe is an unsustainable project in the long term, but sadly the far right like to frame it in a racist and xenophobic way. Europe needs a good relationship with the Arab world which is only possible once mass immigration and multiculturalism policies are abandoned at home as well as imperialist foreign policies abroad. The European far right want to continue multiculturalism, to the exclusion of Muslims and they want to continue imperialist foreign policies.

Most Europeans know very little about how the world works. The lack of perceptiveness among them is astounding. It's either hysterical rightt wing sentiment or naive liberal or hard leftist lunacy. Is there not a normal man in Europe who understands the realities of the world but who also isn't a racist?

[Kaiserschmarrn]

This entire issue is being viewed in binary terms. On one side you have the extremely naive cultural leftists and middle class liberals who say everything is fine and that we need completely open borders. On the other extreme you have the far right who are encouraging anti-Muslim hysteria to unprecedented levels. Both sides are completely extreme and characteristic of the typical naivety and lack of perceptiveness that is so common among Anglos and Northern Europeans. Both sides also are dishonest and just want to advance narratives. They have replaced truth and careful analysis with narrative.

The effective reality is that there is nothing wrong with Muslims, but instead the mismanagement of the migration, the foreign policy of NATO countries and the insane beliefs of the Western middle classes (militant export of liberalism and fanatical devotion to multiculturalism at home). Obviously it isn't possible for Europe to accept such large numbers of people on a permanent basis but it is an issue of numbers as opposed to some sort of inherent fault of Muslims. Mass immigration to Europe is an unsustainable project in the long term, but sadly the far right like to frame it in a racist and xenophobic way. Europe needs a good relationship with the Arab world which is only possible once mass immigration and multiculturalism policies are abandoned at home as well as imperialist foreign policies abroad. The European far right want to continue multiculturalism, to the exclusion of Muslims and they want to continue imperialist foreign policies.

Most Europeans know very little about how the world works. The lack of perceptiveness among them is astounding. It's either hysterical rightt wing sentiment or naive liberal or hard leftist lunacy. Is there not a normal man in Europe who understands the realities of the world but who also isn't a racist?

Can you provide evidence that Anglos and Northern Europeans are different to other peoples in their naivety and lack of perceptiveness?

How do you know that at least some of the negative effects Western Europe has and is experiencing has nothing to do with the religious identity of Muslim immigrants and their descendants? Further, do you really believe that large scale immigration of culturally and/or religiously similar people would be as problematic and potentially divisive as that of people with a completely different cultural and religious background? Is the effort required for integration and assimilation the same?

As far as I can tell from your posts, your problem seems to be more with style than with the substance of the arguments. The way the right presents them offends your sensibilities although you agree, at least partly, with them.

[Political Interest]

Can you provide evidence that Anglos and Northern Europeans are different to other peoples in their naivety and lack of perceptiveness?

I cannot provide any evidence. But this is not a science and we do not need evidence to reach conclusions that are essentially true.

In my experience Slavic nationalities are far better at coping in different cultural contexts. Asian nationalities also tend to be do very well.

However Germanic Europeans and North West Europeans, especially English speakers, have a very hard time coping with other cultures in a rational or sensible way.

How do you know that at least some of the negative effects Western Europe has and is experiencing has nothing to do with the religious identity of Muslim immigrants and their descendants? Further, do you really believe that large scale immigration of culturally and or religiously similar people would be as problematic and potentially divisive as that of people with a completely different cultural and religious background? Is the effort required for integration and assimilation the same?

Ultimately the religious background of the migrants is not a major concern. When I hear someone complaining about Islam as something terrible I imagine a very ignorant person who's only objection to the religion is that it might have something to say about the excesses of contemporary Western cultures. Even as far back as 2005 I remember finding the outrage about hijabs and niqabs completely silly and I sided with the right of Muslims to wear them. Bikinis, excessive liberalism in all fields of life and binge drinking were never something I associated with the true soul of European culture. Therefore I have always felt that blaming Islam and the religious practices of Muslims for the behaviour of certain criminals and anti-social elements is very inaccurate. It's also extremely dishonourable to insult another person's religion. One does not have to believe in Islam or Buddhism but we can respect these religions. And for the sake of stabilty and peace in Eurasia we need to do so.

The religious beliefs of the migrants do not compel them to act in an extremist fashion. The extremism of political Islam is a personal choice made by Islamists. If they were not Muslims they would find another type of extremism to indulge in. Islam is just an excuse for them to practice their hatred and contempt for the societies in which they live. It is a product of boredom, nihilism, cynicism, pop culture and the search for meaning. We can write 200 academic papers on why Islamists behave in the way they do or why young Muslims in Europe can become extremists, but the fundamental reason is boredom and hatred. That is the context which produces extremism in Europe in the 21st century, but the ultimate reality is that any type of plural or multicultural society creates the perfect conditions for social disharmony. It is irrelavent whether they are Muslims or animists. Any mixed or plural society is going to be fertile ground for some type of communalism to develop. To use a European example, remember how in the 1930s there were armed extremist groups operating in Sudeten in Czechoslovakia? Well, it was the same instance of two different peoples living within the same borders, thereby creating conditions for communal disharmony. All that was necessary was the actual context and situation to develop and militant communalism emerged between Czechs and Germans within Czechoslovakia as a state. Therefore while integrating migrants from a more similar ethnic and religious background poses fewer challenges, it does not remove them. And to think that it does fundmamentally ignores the reality that multiculturalism, rather than incompatible migration is to blame. Look at how Poles faced racism at the time the UK chose to leave the European Union. There can be clashes in any situation given the right conditions. Therefore the religious affiliation of the migrants is not very important at all.

As far as I can tell from your posts, your problem seems to be more with style than with the substance of the arguments. The way the right presents them offends your sensibilities although you agree, at least partly, with them.

I agree with many of their conclusions but diagree with the analysis they use to reach those conclusions. Therefore I disagree with the far right on it's view of the world, even if I agree with them that mass immigration and settlement into Europe is unsustainable and against the interests of Europeans. I also disagree with their racial hatred. It is very difficult to explain my position. I am essentially a very honest nationalist. Unlike those who say they are not racist but in fact actually are, I am in a genuine sense a very honest anti-racist nationalist who wants a good relationship with peoples from all backgrounds. I simply know that the demographic marginalisation of Europeans will one day become a reality and would be something that must be opposed. The failure to detach this concern from racial and religious hatred in fact deprives it of any legitimacy.

[Kaiserschmarrn]

I cannot provide any evidence. But this is not a science and we do not need evidence to reach conclusions that are essentially true.

I'm asking because you make this sweeping statement about Germanic/Northwest European cultures but declare that a similarly sweeping statement about Muslims can only be made by a very ignorant person. I'm not sure if you are aware of your double standard here. I take it that you base your assessment of the former on experience and/or reading about the topic but you don't acknowledge that the same may be true for those who have formed a view on Islam/Muslims.

Personally, while I don't think it's valid to declare that Islam cannot be reformed and that it is inherently incompatible with Western values, I can make an assessment of the trajectory of Islam in recent times. And what I'm seeing is a backward/reactionary trend across the world, even in countries that have been held up as examples of moderate Islam, such as Indonesia. Add to this that in Europe Muslims have a tendency to segregate, under-perform economically and, taking into account their share of the population, have a disproportionately high rate of radicalisation, I come to the conclusion that for the time being Muslim immigration ought to be drastically reduced in order to enable us to get a handle on these problems. Further, it makes no sense to treat, say, Poles the same, as they don't have these characteristics.

That said, it's also clear that Islam is not the only factor in this, and I would be perfectly happy to moderate the restrictions based on additional information and data. The problem is that good data is often hard to come by and that public debate is dominated by the same or similar double standards you are demonstrating. No offence to you, but people like you are part of the problem because you only allow yourselves to criticise and be candid about western cultures and declare everybody else off-limits and similar statements about non-westerners ignorant and possibly racist. This just confirms to me that we need de-sensitisation on the subject which is one of the areas where the far right has a role to play.

It's also extremely dishonourable to insult another person's religion. One does not have to believe in Islam or Buddhism but we can respect these religions. And for the sake of stabilty and peace in Eurasia we need to do so.

Being able to mock and disrespect religion is part of Western culture though and as far as Christianity is concerned it hasn't led to instability or threatened peace. In fact, the only religion in the west today that threatens violence or is violent in response to this is Islam. Why are we supposed to think this is irrelevant and/or ignore it? After all, it is one of the characteristics that makes Islam in the west different today and that we can observe.

Therefore while integrating migrants from a more similar ethnic and religious background poses fewer challenges, it does not remove them. And to think that it does fundmamentally ignores the reality that multiculturalism, rather than incompatible migration is to blame. Look at how Poles faced racism at the time the UK chose to leave the European Union. There can be clashes in any situation given the right conditions. Therefore the religious affiliation of the migrants is not very important at all.

If integration and assimilation of some groups poses fewer challenges, then I think it stands to reason that we are correct in stating preferences when it comes to immigration. As you say, this doesn't mean that there is no potential for tensions, but it's hard to ignore, for instance, that second generation British immigrants are pretty much indistinguishable from Kiwis in NZ and that the first generation is already quite similar in their attitudes, values and economic performance. The same is true for Germans or Swiss in Austria and vice versa.

As for racism against Poles after the referendum, I've yet to see good evidence for this. Specifically, the "racist murder" of a Pole was apparently man slaughter that had nothing to do with the victim's ethnicity/nationality - it was a physical altercation that tragically led to the man's death - and the increase in reported hate crimes against Poles needs verification. Reporting is sensitive to appeals to report and awareness among the public and the way hate crime is defined - i.e. solely based on the perception of the victim or a third party - adds to the problems with reliability, so that a heightened sense among the public that Brexit-Britain is racist probably leads to increased reporting by itself even if there is no real rise in hate crimes.

[Political Interest]

I'm asking because you make this sweeping statement about Germanic/Northwest European cultures but declare that a similarly sweeping statement about Muslims can only be made by a very ignorant person. I'm not sure if you are aware of your double standard here. I take it that you base your assessment of the former on experience and/or reading about the topic but you don't acknowledge that the same may be true for those who have formed a view on Islam/Muslims.

Muslims are 1.5 billion people and consist of ethnic groups that are as different to each other as night and day. Germanics and Anglos are specific families of a few ethnic groups. It is much easier to make observations about the behaviour of specific nationalities than it is to make a sweeping generalisation of several different peoples who are extremely different to each other, united only by religion. Generalising about Muslims is no different to trying to essentialise Christians, irrespective of particular national characteristics. And the observations are based on my personal experience. My experience is that a weakness of English speaking societies is their tendency towards ethnocentrism and ignorance about other cultures. They can make sweeping generalisations in one direction or the other, either lauding and romanticising foreign cultures to an unrealistic level or they display an equally unrealistic hostility to certain ones they feel threatened by. The line between these two positions is often very thin. And this is why there is no realistic opinion on immigration, because it is all hyperbolic and extreme.

Personally, while I don't think it's valid to declare that Islam cannot be reformed and that it is inherently incompatible with Western values, I can make an assessment of the trajectory of Islam in recent times. And what I'm seeing is a backward/reactionary trend across the world, even in countries that have been held up as examples of moderate Islam, such as Indonesia.

Islam does not need to be compatible with Western liberal values. Unless Europe is planning to convert to Islam then I do not see why it is obsessing over this question. The real issue is that Western liberals suddenly expect Muslim immigrants to adopt liberalism and secularism. When this does not happen they blame Islam instead of their own unrealistic view of reality. Essentially middle class Western liberals do not understand why Muslims want to wear hijab and are not rushing to put on bikinis. But instead of coming to the realisation that there are different cultures in this world, they continue to insist that the solution is more mass immigration and more attempts to "reform" Islam. If they had any common sense they would understand that the problem is not anyone's religion but the inherent weaknesses and prejudices in all nations and the futility of trying to create artifical plural settler societies in Europe. And the Arab world would not blame us for giving up this attempt. They would be much happier if we would start treating them with some respect in their own part of the world instead of making insincere platitudes towards them in Europe.

Add to this that in Europe Muslims have a tendency to segregate, under-perform economically and, taking into account their share of the population, have a disproportionately high rate of radicalisation, I come to the conclusion that for the time being Muslim immigration ought to be drastically reduced in order to enable us to get a handle on these problems. Further, it makes no sense to treat, say, Poles the same, as they don't have these characteristics.

The self-segregation is caused by the sheer scale of the immigration, almost at settler colony levels. Any mass immigration will result in the creation of communities within communities. It cannot be avoided. But that is what happens when you allow 100,000 foreigners to settle in a country every year. Migrants will settle among people with a similar background. This is what will happen.

That said, it's also clear that Islam is not the only factor in this, and I would be perfectly happy to moderate the restrictions based on additional information and data. The problem is that good data is often hard to come by and that public debate is dominated by the same or similar double standards you are demonstrating. No offence to you, but people like you are part of the problem because you only allow yourselves to criticise and be candid about western cultures and declare everybody else off-limits and similar statements about non-westerners ignorant and possibly racist. This just confirms to me that we need de-sensitisation on the subject which is one of the areas where the far right has a role to play.

My criticism of Western culture is of its naivety and it's insistence on converting others to it's way of life, even if this is quite obviously not possible. I ask why we continue with multiculturalism and mass settlement into Europe when the migrants will not become Europeans. And I do criticise eastern cultures, but I dislike doing this because I am not a product of Asian or Islamic civilisations. I think that your position is problematic, although it is not uncommon. You seem to think that Western culture is so appealing and that everyone who moves to somewhere like Germany, France or the UK is just going to abandon their ancestral culture and assimilate, leaving all traces behind. This never happens. Any settler community is always a copy of the society it emerged from. But given that this is the case, why blame migrants for doing what is normal for any human being to do? And therefore the only sensible conclusion is that it is not the fault of the migrants or their culture but the silliness of Europeans to think that mass immigration is a sustainable policy in the long term. It is not their fault that they refuse to wear bikinis but our fault for inviting them into Europe on the pretense of becoming Europeans when this is essentially impossible.

Being able to mock and disrespect religion is part of Western culture though and as far as Christianity is concerned it hasn't led to instability or threatened peace. In fact, the only religion in the west today that threatens violence or is violent in response to this is Islam. Why are we supposed to think this is irrelevant and/or ignore it? After all, it is one of the characteristics that makes Islam in the west different today and that we can observe.

The extreme liberalism of the West is a major part of the crisis we are witnessing. Criticism of Christianity and the foundations of European civilisation for its own sake is symptomatic of the dire state that European civilisation is in. Don't you see how ludicrous the entire situation is? Invite Muslims to settle en masse in Europe, criticise and deconstruct European identity and then expect Muslims to respect this or want to assimilate into the nothingness we have created for ourselves. I am not sure if you have been to a British town centre on a Friday night, but I do not see how any migrant could respect such scenes or want to assimilate into it.

The charm of Europe used to be it's mix of conservatism with sane liberalism. But it lost the former and has now dived into insansity.

If integration and assimilation of some groups poses fewer challenges, then I think it stands to reason that we are correct in stating preferences when it comes to immigration. As you say, this doesn't mean that there is no potential for tensions, but it's hard to ignore, for instance, that second generation British immigrants are pretty much indistinguishable from Kiwis in NZ and that the first generation is already quite similar in their attitudes, values and economic performance. The same is true for Germans or Swiss in Austria and vice versa.

British immigrants to New Zealand are migrating to a country that is for the most part ethnically British. Likewise Germans and Swiss in Austria come from German speaking backgrounds. There is no ethnic difference between the migrants and populations of the countries to which they have migrated to. It is therefore a matter of living there for a generation and adopting the local accent.

As for racism against Poles after the referendum, I've yet to see good evidence for this. Specifically, the "racist murder" of a Pole was apparently man slaughter that had nothing to do with the victim's ethnicity/nationality - it was a physical altercation that tragically led to the man's death - and the increase in reported hate crimes against Poles needs verification. Reporting is sensitive to appeals to report and awareness among the public and the way hate crime is defined - i.e. solely based on the perception of the victim or a third party - adds to the problems with reliability, so that a heightened sense among the public that Brexit-Britain is racist probably leads to increased reporting by itself even if there is no real rise in hate crimes.

But would you disagree that ethnic tension existed in Czechoslovakia before 1945? It did not require immigration from outside Europe for this to happen. And it was no different in Northern Ireland or even in Glasgow between Irish Catholics and Scottish Protestants.

[Kaiserschmarrn]

@Political Interest, there is a difference in the degree to which one can generalise, but the general statements I have made about Islam and Muslims, based on what is observable today, are still as valid as and I think more accurate than yours about Northwestern Europeans. I have a problem specifically with your claim that Anglos are more ethnocentric and ignorant than others which seems totally contrary to reality. I find it hard to believe, for instance, that the discourse in, say, Middle Eastern and North African countries about the US, European countries or the west is more nuanced and accurate, and that they are less ethnocentric or perhaps more applicable in some cases less sectarian. Or take East Asia and their views on ethnic diversity and immigration. What you call right-wing hyperbole and extreme is actually closer to mainstream consensus there. So with respect to your criticism of the far right in Europe, your view seems to be at least as naive and ignorant about other cultures and countries as you claim Anglos to be.

Just in case I haven't made that clear before, I agree with much of your criticism. Where I most strongly disagree, as mentioned above, is your assessment of and complaints about the far right. For one, a large part, perhaps by now a majority, of them are people who were until recently part of the centre-right. Their views weren't regarded as extremist 20, and depending on the country and subject in some cases as little as 10 years ago, and moreover they wouldn't be seen as extremist in many other parts of the world either. Second, your strategy is pretty much how the right has acted for decades, that is, strongly and constantly distancing themselves from and denouncing the far right. When Charlottesville was in the news recently, the Telegraph had an article on their front page for days whose title was Conservatives must make it very clear that they are not Nazis, or something to that effect. It's hard to put into words the contempt I have for these people. No, conservatives don't have to do that just like they don't have to make clear at every opportunity that they are not aliens. I have no patience anymore for rightist who insist on weakening their position by incessantly focusing on a small fringe element on their side and voluntarily elevating it as a massive problem. The left certainly has no intention to behave even remotely similarly when it comes to their own extremists, but they have exploited that open flank on our side for a long time now and they surely won't stop as long as we keep responding like this.

But would you disagree that ethnic tension existed in Czechoslovakia before 1945? It did not require immigration from outside Europe for this to happen. And it was no different in Northern Ireland or even in Glasgow between Irish Catholics and Scottish Protestants.

I don't disagree. As I said in my previous post, cultural/religious/ethnic similarity does not necessarily preclude tensions. As is usually the case with complex topics on a societal scale, it's a matter of likelihood. Everything else being equal, assimilating/integrating Germans and Brits in Austria and NZ respectively is more likely to be successful than people who are more different in terms of their cultural background, even more so if we are dealing with large-scale immigration.