[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.

But what you do not understand is that the liberalism of English speaking societies with regards to immigration and discourses on race is only possible because they are so isolated from other cultures. Any society in which the idea of "white privilege" can gain mass acceptance is obviously ethnocentric because any nation that had any real contact with other civilisations would never embrace this. You should also consider the possibility that it is possible to be nationalistic without being ethnocentric. I do not think we can say that the Arabs are ethnocentric. And in Far East it is no different. These are all civilisations which were forced to deal with outsiders forcing themselves in. They cannot be ethnocentric.

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.

A lot of the so called far right today are not really far right, but hard centre-right. It still doesn't change the fact that their positions on Islam and Muslims are infantile and the opposite side of the same coin which the SJWs and cultural leftists share with them.

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.

There is nothing wrong with criticising the right when it is advocating false narratives and short sighted solutions. So far the right has offered no solutions to any real problems. For example, the position of Wilders in Holland is simply absurd.

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.

Well, yes, I think cultural similarity does make integration and assimilation easier. However I think the religious dimension is being over emphasised. And there are Muslim nationalities which have cultures more similar to European culture.

[fokker]

Well, yes, I think cultural similarity does make integration and assimilation easier. However I think the religious dimension is being over emphasised. And there are Muslim nationalities which have cultures more similar to European culture.

I disagree. In Bosnia culture is the same, language basically too, only religion is different. And it got very violent there because non muslims didn't want to live under muslims again (as during Ottoman empire). Serbs fought and died for this in Balkan wars. EU solution was to force everybody to live in a disfunctional state.

Religious conflicts are very serious as people can be very bigoted with regards to religious beliefs. An aggresive religion like Islam coupled with backward culture and lack of education is recipe for terrorism. A Christian with psychological problems (sudden major problems in life) gets drunk, an Islam follower falls victim to IS propaganda and kills people.

In V4 people want no illegal immigrants. They have travelled to western Europe and made up their mind. Sometimes it may be better not to be the first one in line but let others introduce questionable policies and learn from their experience.

[Politiks]

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

Depending where you're looks worse than that. I went last year to mini Euro trip with some friends, we went to Paris, Lion, London, Barcelona, Lisbon and Brussels. The most European city I went was Lisbon. Before 2016 the last time I been to Paris and London was in 2012.

The following video shows a new "ONG plant" in Paris. Basically a small calais

[noir]

Scene from a British court today. Why did they come from Pakistan? Most of them are living on benefit so it's not job. Who brought them and why?

[Kaiserschmarrn]

Sorry for my late reply, PI. I had written up a long post a few days ago but lost it, and then had a hard time motivating myself to do it all over again.

But what you do not understand is that the liberalism of English speaking societies with regards to immigration and discourses on race is only possible because they are so isolated from other cultures. Any society in which the idea of "white privilege" can gain mass acceptance is obviously ethnocentric because any nation that had any real contact with other civilisations would never embrace this.

You should also consider the possibility that it is possible to be nationalistic without being ethnocentric. I do not think we can say that the Arabs are ethnocentric.

How do you define "real contact"? I don't follow you because on the face of it English speaking countries weren't more isolated from other cultures than the rest of the world. You might have something specific in mind, so I'd be interested in your thoughts about what makes contact real or not.

I'm having a similar problem with your claim about ethnocentrism. Would you say Japan is less ethnocentric, for instance? What about various Eastern and Southeastern European countries? It's difficult to see for me how the English speaking world or Northwestern Europe stands out.

I think it's also questionable to single out ethnocentrism, as opposed to say religious identity, in terms of it resulting in ignorance and extremism vis-a-vis out-groups. I agree with you that ethnocentrism is probably not the best word to describe the Arab world and North Africa, as religious identity and often tribalism/clannishness also play a role there. For instance, in Morocco, people seem to identify not only as Muslim first but this is followed by being Arabs:

In the study “Daily Islam: a survey of religious values and practices in Morocco,” Moroccans are defined first as Muslims, then as Arabs and only then as Moroccan and Berber.

How do you reconcile this with your claim that the religious dimension is over-emphasised by English speakers and in Northwestern Europe? It's quite clear that religion is a big deal for people who come from that region and it's actually often the most important factor in establishing identity. If you consider tribalism and clannishness, what you get is smaller sub-units with even stronger bonds, and while these are often an obstacle to an ethnic identity that encompasses the whole country, it's difficult to see how they are less prone to what you regard as extreme or exceptionally ignorant views.

As for "white privilege", this is primarily an American invention which they export across the world via their cultural dominance. However, I think that the creation of this white identity actually contradicts your assertion in that the US, historically dominated by British and Northwestern Europeans, has managed to merge all European identities into a single category and unify them under Anglo culture. This happened after a large spike in immigration from Southern, Eastern and Central Europe at the beginning of the 20th century, and it took several decades and coincided with a period of low immigration. If the US as an English speaking country were so exceptionally ethnocentric this shouldn't have happened. It certainly hasn't happened anywhere in Europe.

A lot of the so called far right today are not really far right, but hard centre-right. It still doesn't change the fact that their positions on Islam and Muslims are infantile and the opposite side of the same coin which the SJWs and cultural leftists share with them.

We can debate whether their views are infantile - some are but many are not in my opinion - but my main disagreement here is your claim that they are somehow exceptional or extreme compared with other countries. You seem to ignore the hostility, discrimination and often violence against out-groups, whether that's based on religion, ethnicity/race or tribes, that is ubiquitous in much of the world.

I grant you that the social justice movement is unique, but they only seem like two sides of the same coin if you ignore history and the rest of the world. The far right's positions, whether in English speaking countries or Western Europe in general, with respect to Islam aren't exceptional in comparison to policies on religious minorities in non-Western countries. See the Pew Research Government Restrictions Index which classifies countries worldwide based on the following:

The Government Restrictions Index (GRI) measures government laws, policies and actions that restrict religious beliefs and practices. The GRI is comprised of 20 measures of restrictions, including efforts by governments to ban particular faiths, prohibit conversions, limit preaching or give preferential treatment to one or more religious groups.

The reality is that if the far right gains more influence on religious matters the west will simply catch up to some extent with the rest of the world.

There is nothing wrong with criticising the right when it is advocating false narratives and short sighted solutions. So far the right has offered no solutions to any real problems. For example, the position of Wilders in Holland is simply absurd.

If you and I can have a frank discussion like this one again without being called bigots, racists or worse, we will owe it mostly to the far right and the hard centre right. They will have done the majority of the leg work in making it acceptable again.

Well, yes, I think cultural similarity does make integration and assimilation easier. However I think the religious dimension is being over emphasised. And there are Muslim nationalities which have cultures more similar to European culture.

Regarding the religious dimension being over-emphasised, please see above. Note also that the majority of Muslim immigrants to Europe comes from countries where religion is disproportionately important, where the number of Christians is declining and where, with few exception, there are no Jews at all. @fokker is also right that even in Europe religion can matter greatly in establishing in and out groups, although I wouldn't restrict this to Muslims and Christians, but the distinction between e.g. Croats and Serbs also seems to have a religious dimension.

[Political Interest]

Sorry for my late reply, PI. I had written up a long post a few days ago but lost it, and then had a hard time motivating myself to do it all over again.

Not at all. Thank you very much for your response. And thank you for putting so much time and effort into responding to me. It is much appreciated.

How do you define "real contact"? I don't follow you because on the face of it English speaking countries weren't more isolated from other cultures than the rest of the world. You might have something specific in mind, so I'd be interested in your thoughts about what makes contact real or not.

Britain is a very good example. It is an island and isolated from the continent. It did not have different peoples on it's borders in the same way that other European countries did. And it did not ever experience the realities of occupation or life as part of a multicultural continent. The empire was a separate world and the majority of people in England had very little contact with anyone from the empire. English speaking countries are notorious for being monolingual. In my experience there is very little interest in consumption of non-English media or understanding other countries. It's not a criticism, just an observation. And I also think that not having experienced occupation or existential emergencies allow societies like England and America to become complacent and accept ludicrous concepts like 'white privilege'. For example, if you asked Koreans or Poles to accept such a notion as as Asian privilege or white privilege, they would laugh at you. And this is because both countries have had cultural interaction with others forced upon them and experienced existential emergencies through much of their recent history. English speaking countries are isolated from the realities of life on a continent like Europe or Asia. It is interestingly enough it's own type of privilege.

I'm having a similar problem with your claim about ethnocentrism. Would you say Japan is less ethnocentric, for instance? What about various Eastern and Southeastern European countries? It's difficult to see for me how the English speaking world or Northwestern Europe stands out.

Yes, I would say Japan is less ethnocentric and Eastern and Southeastern Europe are also anything but ethnocentric. Japan is not a cultural exporter, although it does export culture to Asia. But it still has to live in a world where the main superpower is America and it has to deal with the realities of being a non-power in such a world. The Japanese were forced to deal with the outside world by Europeans and America. The average Japanese will not have the luxury of going abroad and having their language understood by everyone else in the world. They either have to learn English or the language of the country they are visiting or living in if they want to communicate. Japan also did not get to experience the luxury of geographic isolation and has experienced suffering through war in the same way that the American population did not. Japan is therefore not ethnocentric and does not view reality from the perspective of itself as the centre of the universe and global culture. And in Eastern Europe none of the countries there could ever afford to be ethnocentric when they experienced continuous occupation and forced interaction with outsiders. They were by definition not ethnocentric because foreigners were imposing themselves. And historically there have been far more ethnicities in Central European and Eastern European countries than there have been in anywhere in the English speaking world.

I think it's also questionable to single out ethnocentrism, as opposed to say religious identity, in terms of it resulting in ignorance and extremism vis-a-vis out-groups. I agree with you that ethnocentrism is probably not the best word to describe the Arab world and North Africa, as religious identity and often tribalism/clannishness also play a role there. For instance, in Morocco, people seem to identify not only as Muslim first but this is followed by being Arabs:
Al Monitor

In the study “Daily Islam: a survey of religious values and practices in Morocco,” Moroccans are defined first as Muslims, then as Arabs and only then as Moroccan and Berber.

How do you reconcile this with your claim that the religious dimension is over-emphasised by English speakers and in Northwestern Europe? It's quite clear that religion is a big deal for people who come from that region and it's actually often the most important factor in establishing identity. If you consider tribalism and clannishness, what you get is smaller sub-units with even stronger bonds, and while these are often an obstacle to an ethnic identity that encompasses the whole country, it's difficult to see how they are less prone to what you regard as extreme or exceptionally ignorant views.

It is important to remember that religious identity is often tied to national identity. The fact that Moroccans would consider themselves Muslims above everything else is not surprising. Islamism in Europe is therefore an expression of ethnic affiliation as much as it is religious observance. To say that Islam condones the negative behaviours we see in Europe or the retrograde conservatism is a cultural argument. It is the argument of people like Wilders. But in reality Islam is just being used as a cultural marker and an expression of ethnic identity in a European context. There is a reason why the extremists are often not very good Muslims before they become Islamists. It is because the political ideology above the religious element lures them to this type of belief system. The fact is that Islam as a religion does not condone any of this. Islamism is actually a type of third worldist movement. It really does not have much to do with religion, except where it concerns religion as an identity.

As for "white privilege", this is primarily an American invention which they export across the world via their cultural dominance. However, I think that the creation of this white identity actually contradicts your assertion in that the US, historically dominated by British and Northwestern Europeans, has managed to merge all European identities into a single category and unify them under Anglo culture. This happened after a large spike in immigration from Southern, Eastern and Central Europe at the beginning of the 20th century, and it took several decades and coincided with a period of low immigration. If the US as an English speaking country were so exceptionally ethnocentric this shouldn't have happened. It certainly hasn't happened anywhere in Europe.

All this means is that immigrants assimilated into the American identity. It does not mean that American culture was somehow more tolerant or sensitive to other cultures. If it was real multiculturalism then why did these European immigrants lose their language and identity?

We can debate whether their views are infantile - some are but many are not in my opinion - but my main disagreement here is your claim that they are somehow exceptional or extreme compared with other countries. You seem to ignore the hostility, discrimination and often violence against out-groups, whether that's based on religion, ethnicity/race or tribes, that is ubiquitous in much of the world.

I don't ignore discrimination and violence against out-groups all over the world. I simply think that the rightists define it in completely religious terms when religion is not the main cause of all of this. Religion is just an excuse. And my position is not that the European right is extreme compared to other societies. I only criticised their position as an ideological current. My argument about ethnocentrism of certain European societies is not a comment on any particular ideological current but simply an observation of cultural behaviour.

I grant you that the social justice movement is unique, but they only seem like two sides of the same coin if you ignore history and the rest of the world. The far right's positions, whether in English speaking countries or Western Europe in general, with respect to Islam aren't exceptional in comparison to policies on religious minorities in non-Western countries. See the Pew Research Government Restrictions Index which classifies countries worldwide based on the following:
The Government Restrictions Index (GRI) measures government laws, policies and actions that restrict religious beliefs and practices. The GRI is comprised of 20 measures of restrictions, including efforts by governments to ban particular faiths, prohibit conversions, limit preaching or give preferential treatment to one or more religious groups.
The reality is that if the far right gains more influence on religious matters the west will simply catch up to some extent with the rest of the world.

I don't disagree with this. My main criticism of the far right is that they blame the complications on a religion as opposed to far more nuanced reasons. And the rperession in non-Western societies is not so much a product of an ethnocentric misunderstanding but simply opportunistic tyranny. For example, I doubt there is any particular world view that informs the oppression of minorities in non-Western countries. But the Western far right has adopted the clash of civilisations narrative into it's ideology. Whereas in Pakistan and Indonesia I think it is more simply intolerance.

If you and I can have a frank discussion like this one again without being called bigots, racists or worse, we will owe it mostly to the far right and the hard centre right. They will have done the majority of the leg work in making it acceptable again.

It is very sad but yes, a lot of the far right are only a reaction to the lunacy of the other side of the same coin. And I am under no illusion about the other side either.

Regarding the religious dimension being over-emphasised, please see above. Note also that the majority of Muslim immigrants to Europe comes from countries where religion is disproportionately important, where the number of Christians is declining and where, with few exception, there are no Jews at all. @fokker is also right that even in Europe religion can matter greatly in establishing in and out groups, although I wouldn't restrict this to Muslims and Christians, but the distinction between e.g. Croats and Serbs also seems to have a religious dimension.

Yes, the social and political aspect of religious identity cannot be denied. But that is not what a lot of the far right are arguing about. They claim that Islam has certain traits that make it uniquely undesirable. They are therefore opposed to the religion as a religion and ignore other factors, including how religion acts as a marker of identity.

And they also ignore the fact that the behaviour of Islamists and others is not necessarily religiously inspired. The Islamists can claim that it is religion which motivates them, but how do we know? Deep down, I think that there is a type of ethnic nationalism involved. And it is this which motivates their hatred towards the West, more than anything. Religion therefore becomes an excuse and a marker of ethnic idendity. It is therefore not religion that motivates them but a type of nationalism.

[Kaiserschmarrn]

@Political Interest, thanks for the clarification on ethnocentrism. I've given this some thought and, being the contrarian that I am , I don't think it really captures what is going on.

My main contention is that this mirror image you refer to with respect to racism and white privilege is not the only area where we continue to regard the concept itself, race in this case, as extremely important. We have the same phenomenon with sexism and male privilege and actually any of the privileges that already exist or may be invoked in the future. We also see something similar with sex which was supposed to become less important, with everybody being super-relaxed about it, once we dealt with sexual repression and became liberated, and look how obsessed we still are with it, arguably even more so in some respects than before. The issue here is that the original aim of creating societies where race, gender and for that matter sex were no longer as important as our rather ignorant and perhaps barbarian ancestors believed has not been successful. Rather, what has happened is that we are still just as obsessed with them. Of course I'm still not closer to an answer for why this has happened and why it has happened only in the west.

Regarding Islam, I think that religion has always played these roles in human societies to varying extents. You seem to be thinking about it in terms of the modern conception of religion, i.e. it being about private beliefs and spirituality. Yet in much of the world this transformation hasn't happened at all or only partially. Hence the right is probably closer to reality in its views of Islam, although they are wrong if they are declaring this a unique feature of it.

[Politiks]

This is completely insane! I'm living in germany and this discussion is insane. Why would germany need a constant population? 80 million. Is this a physical constant?

No! We dont need immigration. And for sure, we dont need immigration into our social system. We dont need immigrants with no educational background. This people are mainly muslims, incompatible with the christian culture.

They will just cost a lot of money and germany will not benefit at all. Apart from that, they will transform the openminded european culture into some society from the third world.

There is a quote from Peter Scholl-Latour, a german professor, journalist and author. He traveled around the world and knew it better than most of the people will ever know.

Apparently what they want is Islamic immigration, if not they would offer asylum or immigration visas to countries with similar or more compatible cultures. Do you see Germany offering visas to similar cultures? I think all this was designed long time ago and the Barcelona Declaration was the final nail in certain European countries, Germany being one of those countries.

There isn't radical or moderate Islam, there's only Islam. Funny enough in Arab Tv they openly say they will out breed Europeans and conquer Europe.

Out of topic but relevant: people really need to understand what third world means because they keep misusing the term. Third world means neutral. During Cold war first world was USA and their minions, second world was Russia/ Communist block and Third world was the neutral countries like Brazil, Sweden, Switzerland, Portugal, Argentina. So you to understand, French Guyana is a first world because is a French territory so they supported the allies.

[noir]

@Politiks, never realized that Sweden as "neutral" state was part of Third World block.

[Potemkin]

@Politiks, never realized that Sweden as "neutral" state was part of Third World block.

It was, and so was Finland.

[noir]

There were non align states, that's known, but never thought that they got the absoulte identification with the Global South (another subtitute name to Third World or developing world, color world etc) from that movement. Austria, Finland and Yugoslavia were also neutrals but we don't see such messianic Third Worldism on these countries.

[Political Interest]

My main contention is that this mirror image you refer to with respect to racism and white privilege is not the only area where we continue to regard the concept itself, race in this case, as extremely important. We have the same phenomenon with sexism and male privilege and actually any of the privileges that already exist or may be invoked in the future. We also see something similar with sex which was supposed to become less important, with everybody being super-relaxed about it, once we dealt with sexual repression and became liberated, and look how obsessed we still are with it, arguably even more so in some respects than before. The issue here is that the original aim of creating societies where race, gender and for that matter sex were no longer as important as our rather ignorant and perhaps barbarian ancestors believed has not been successful. Rather, what has happened is that we are still just as obsessed with them. Of course I'm still not closer to an answer for why this has happened and why it has happened only in the west.

Thank you for your response.

It really is a mystery as to why the West tried to create societies where identity ceases to exist and where we have all these avant garde social experiments. My theory on race obsession and ethnocentrism is something I still maintain but there are many other factors as well. I think that America was always a liberal country and once the cultural liberal academics and counter-cultural forces became established it was not that difficult to shift the culture in the direction it's currently heading. And because America became the leader of the West after WW2 the entirety of Europe got influenced as well. Maybe in Eastern Europe they were shielded from this American influence to a greater extent and that is why they are are less intent on deconstructing their societies?

I think that within a European context a lot of it was to justify economic policies, namely the use of migrant labour. In Britain it was also part of maintaining the empire in an age of decolonisation.

Regarding Islam, I think that religion has always played these roles in human societies to varying extents. You seem to be thinking about it in terms of the modern conception of religion, i.e. it being about private beliefs and spirituality. Yet in much of the world this transformation hasn't happened at all or only partially. Hence the right is probably closer to reality in its views of Islam, although they are wrong if they are declaring this a unique feature of it.

Mass immigration was the product of 20th century modernity. The creation of large diaspora communities in Europe with different identities was a very modern process. The right misunderstand this and think it's only because of religion. For example, I do not understand in what way Islam creates issues in European societies.

[Kaiserschmarrn]

Thank you for your response.

It really is a mystery as to why the West tried to create societies where identity ceases to exist and where we have all these avant garde social experiments. My theory on race obsession and ethnocentrism is something I still maintain but there are many other factors as well. I think that America was always a liberal country and once the cultural liberal academics and counter-cultural forces became established it was not that difficult to shift the culture in the direction it's currently heading. And because America became the leader of the West after WW2 the entirety of Europe got influenced as well. Maybe in Eastern Europe they were shielded from this American influence to a greater extent and that is why they are are less intent on deconstructing their societies?

I think that within a European context a lot of it was to justify economic policies, namely the use of migrant labour. In Britain it was also part of maintaining the empire in an age of decolonisation.

It's nice to have this discussion with you, PI, and thanks for your patience with my slow replies.

Thinking about this a bit more, I'd say that with respect to national or ethnic identity Germany may actually be the worst. There is a relationship with past sins: Germany has to repent for the Nazis, the US for slavery, the UK and France for colonialism, and all of them for various other sins such as sexism. This clearly goes back to the social revolution of the 1960s. Liberalism might play a role because of the free choices it provides. If you were a social justice warrior at any time since the 60s which professions and which academic fields are attractive and give you the chance to make a difference socially? It's precisely those that are dominated by progressives and the left today. So there was a "march through the institutions", although not by design. It took some time but by the 2000s any semblance of balance had vanished because those who grew up or made their career choices before this revolution are dead or in retirement.

The other factor I believe is that conservatives and people on the right were focused on economics and fighting communism and socialism as well as complacency and a lack of appreciation of the extent of societal changes that were possible. Adenauer famously said, when questioned about the financial sustainability of pensions in Germany, that people would always have children. It was inconceivable back then that birth rates would drop below replacement levels and much of what we are seeing today must have seemed similarly inconceivable to conservatives. There was also the idea among the right that academia could be left to progressives and lefties as a playing ground because there they couldn't do much damage in the real world.

So many fields are now echo chambers where people are hardly ever exposed to different views at all. The most dangerous development is in education because pretty much every person goes through it and exposure starts in childhood, e.g. we now have people openly designing social justice curricula. This is a breeding ground for tribalism with its tendency to demand first and foremost loyalty, often expressed by what we today call virtue signalling. Identity politics provides the framework and modern technology, e.g. social media, a good part of the enforcement, especially as teens and even children now often have unsupervised access to it.

Immigration and "diversity" have recently become sacred values of the tribe - say something against it and you come under immediate suspicion of being at the very least an "enabler" of racists and nazis. In an incredibly ironic twist, much of the left is now the main ally of multinational corporations in that respect and they are actually fanatical about it precisely because they are operating based on tribalism. The majority of the right has never been so fundamentalist about this issue.

Mass immigration was the product of 20th century modernity. The creation of large diaspora communities in Europe with different identities was a very modern process. The right misunderstand this and think it's only because of religion. For example, I do not understand in what way Islam creates issues in European societies.

Religion can create issues because, as mentioned previously, it can serve many different functions. As for Islam, most Muslim immigrants to Europe come from countries where Islam is much more than a personal belief system. You can even make the argument, and some on the right certainly do so, that Islam is exceptional in that it codifies a much wider role for itself into its sacred texts and hence it may be more difficult to transform it into something that is similar to the modern western conception of Christianity prevalent in Western Europe. As of today Islam is certainly not moving in that direction but rather the opposite. Immigration from countries where culture and ethnic identity are much more intertwined with religion and where religion plays a prominent role in society might actually exacerbate this, as the traditions and cultures of the source country lose importance over time for immigrant communities, while the religious aspects may not. Perhaps this is especially so if the religion in question is universalist and there is a global community which can tie people together.

No matter where you stand with respect to religion, you should be able to see that this is a potential problem. If you happen to think that the retreat of religion into private lives is a positive development, it should make you uneasy that this may not be so for immigrant communities which make up an increasing share of the population. And if you think religion should become more prominent and public again in western societies, then there is now an established rival base for people to identify with. Either way, it's important to at least take note of it and today the only people daring to even mention this are on the right.

[noir]

EU capital

[noir]

Hundreds of activists flocked to the Libyan Embassy in Paris on Saturday, outraged with the government’s failure to tackle people smuggling after a CCN report unveiled a network of migrant slave auctions in Libya.
About a thousand people turned up to the protest following calls by several prominent anti-slavery groups and a number of celebrities of African origin, including soccer star Didier Drogba and former Miss France Sonia Rolland.

Carrying signs reading “No to slavery in Libya,” the demonstrators gathered in front of the Libyan Embassy on Saturday afternoon before marching towards the Champs-Elysees, where they were stopped by riot police cordons.

“Free our brothers,” “Let’s liberate Africa,” “We are black, we are human!” the demonstrators chanted as they attacked Police.

Clashes broke out as police moved to disperse the protest. Some activists began hurling rocks at police, who responded with tear gas.

A Ruptly crew was on the spot to film as activists attempted to break through metal barriers erected by police.

One person was arrested following the scuffles, AFP reports. Police say the protest was illegitimate, adding that “no damage” resulted from the clashes.

Earlier this week, the Libyan government launched a probe into slave auctions operating in the country, including areas controlled by the UN-backed internationally-recognized Government of National Accord, after CNN showed footage of migrants being sold at a location outside Tripoli.

CNN claims in the report that men were priced at as little as $400, and that auctions are being carried out at many sites across Libya each month.

Libya has become the last stop on the route to Europe for migrants fleeing war, persecution, and poverty in their home countries, with the ongoing political chaos allowing people smugglers to thrive in the country, ravaged by civil war.

[Political Interest]

It's nice to have this discussion with you, PI, and thanks for your patience with my slow replies.

Please excuse my slow response. Daily life over the last two months has taken me very far from PoFo. But I did not forget about your response.

Thinking about this a bit more, I'd say that with respect to national or ethnic identity Germany may actually be the worst. There is a relationship with past sins: Germany has to repent for the Nazis, the US for slavery, the UK and France for colonialism, and all of them for various other sins such as sexism. This clearly goes back to the social revolution of the 1960s. Liberalism might play a role because of the free choices it provides. If you were a social justice warrior at any time since the 60s which professions and which academic fields are attractive and give you the chance to make a difference socially? It's precisely those that are dominated by progressives and the left today. So there was a "march through the institutions", although not by design. It took some time but by the 2000s any semblance of balance had vanished because those who grew up or made their career choices before this revolution are dead or in retirement.

I think there was definitely a takeover of institutions. It was almost as though they applied Gramsci's idea of cultural hegemony and tried to change the institutional culture of the West, especially within academia, to allow for an environment where their ideas could become mainstream. What I do not understand is why the establishment, whether centre left or centre right chose to embrace these ideas. The conservatives in most Western countries never opposed the multicultural experiment. Today many are embracing this idea and in a country like the UK the centre right do not consider a homogenous Britain possible. Many would argue that it contradicts British conservatism. Why conservatives embraced mass immigration is still a mystery.

The other factor I believe is that conservatives and people on the right were focused on economics and fighting communism and socialism as well as complacency and a lack of appreciation of the extent of societal changes that were possible. Adenauer famously said, when questioned about the financial sustainability of pensions in Germany, that people would always have children. It was inconceivable back then that birth rates would drop below replacement levels and much of what we are seeing today must have seemed similarly inconceivable to conservatives. There was also the idea among the right that academia could be left to progressives and lefties as a playing ground because there they couldn't do much damage in the real world.

Adenauer's opinion on pensions is very interesting because it again reflects the menatlity of post-war Europe. As you said, the focus was not so much on culture or the possibility of demographic shift but on geopolitical, economic and ideological struggles. In 1965 the memory of the war was still very recent and no one was worried about mass immigration from the global south. I wonder if it is possible that in those times no one ever even gave it a second throught. Therefore the only reason to oppose it was if you were a racist. The legitimate reasons for opposing it were simply inconceivable. In the wider context of the Cold War, the post-war echo of fascism and the need to fight Stalinism, it's no surprise that the conservatives neglected these issues. And it's no surprise that they dismissed progressives as harmless in a time when the world was not changed by academics but by tanks, infantry and land wars accross Europe.

So many fields are now echo chambers where people are hardly ever exposed to different views at all. The most dangerous development is in education because pretty much every person goes through it and exposure starts in childhood, e.g. we now have people openly designing social justice curricula. This is a breeding ground for tribalism with its tendency to demand first and foremost loyalty, often expressed by what we today call virtue signalling. Identity politics provides the framework and modern technology, e.g. social media, a good part of the enforcement, especially as teens and even children now often have unsupervised access to it.

Very few people have a deep interest in social or political questions. They can therefore easily accept these quasi-intellectual ideas promoted to them through institutions and social media without having the interest or intellectual capacity to challenge them. It's a type of pseudo-intellectualism that is very dangerous because the ideas are entertained in a casual way without serious consideration of their implications.

Immigration and "diversity" have recently become sacred values of the tribe - say something against it and you come under immediate suspicion of being at the very least an "enabler" of racists and nazis. In an incredibly ironic twist, much of the left is now the main ally of multinational corporations in that respect and they are actually fanatical about it precisely because they are operating based on tribalism. The majority of the right has never been so fundamentalist about this issue.

What is the most absurd part of all this is that instead of building leftist movements among the European and American working classes, with a view to political power, their main obsession is cultural change. They promote mass immigration into the West and anti-European attitudes to the detriment of their support base, the indigenous working classes of most European countries. Anyone who disagrees is labelled a racist or an upholder of white privilege. The left have therefore abandoned the white working class. To them they are compromised and counter-revolutionary, therefore only migrant labour can be the agent of revolutionary change in Western societies.

Religion can create issues because, as mentioned previously, it can serve many different functions. As for Islam, most Muslim immigrants to Europe come from countries where Islam is much more than a personal belief system. You can even make the argument, and some on the right certainly do so, that Islam is exceptional in that it codifies a much wider role for itself into its sacred texts and hence it may be more difficult to transform it into something that is similar to the modern western conception of Christianity prevalent in Western Europe. As of today Islam is certainly not moving in that direction but rather the opposite. Immigration from countries where culture and ethnic identity are much more intertwined with religion and where religion plays a prominent role in society might actually exacerbate this, as the traditions and cultures of the source country lose importance over time for immigrant communities, while the religious aspects may not. Perhaps this is especially so if the religion in question is universalist and there is a global community which can tie people together.

There is nothing within Islam as a religion that is problematic for Europe. I consider the rhetoric of the Islamophobic right quite dishonourable. Mass immigration into Europe from anywhere, regardless of religion, is going to eventually result in the demographic marginalisation of the indigenous population. The religion of the migrants is therefore not important. I don't think this has anything to do with religion.

No matter where you stand with respect to religion, you should be able to see that this is a potential problem. If you happen to think that the retreat of religion into private lives is a positive development, it should make you uneasy that this may not be so for immigrant communities which make up an increasing share of the population. And if you think religion should become more prominent and public again in western societies, then there is now an established rival base for people to identify with. Either way, it's important to at least take note of it and today the only people daring to even mention this are on the right.

Religious discussions are used as a distraction from the real issue. The Islamophobic right want to place restrictions on the religious practices of Muslims, stop them wearing niqab, burqas and in some cases even forbid their religious activities altogether. But this ignores the question of demography. No religion is problematic and we should respect all of them. The real issue is the possibility that Europeans could become a minority in their ancestral lands. Nothing else matters. When people like Wilders pontificate about how Islam is some sort of civilisational threat they indulge in reductionism. I think that Islamophobia delegitimises the cause of the right. Europe needs friendship with the Islamic world for the sake of global stability. Islamophobia is very dangerous and doesn't address demographic decline. If Europe stops issuing visas to foreigners and granting so many passports to non-citizens, no one in the Muslim world will protest. I therefore don't understand why the right use Muslims as a scapegoat for the insanity of cultural leftist SJWs and our cultural problems generally. The clash of civilisations is imagined and mass immigration into Europe is a management problem, as well as a political one. European and Muslim conservatives are natural friends. The right needs to oppose racism and Islamophobia while also pressing the need to oppose mass immigration into Europe. There is no contradiction between them. I know quite a few Muslims and they are some of the most honourable people I have ever met.

[noir]

It's all to do with "economic growth", these people don't care about the culture change

EU should 'undermine national homogeneity' says UN migration chief
By Brian Wheeler
Political reporter, BBC News
21 June 2012

Peter Sutherland's global migration forum brings together 160 nations to discuss policy

The EU should "do its best to undermine" the "homogeneity" of its member states, the UN's special representative for migration has said.

Peter Sutherland told peers the future prosperity of many EU states depended on them becoming multicultural.

He also suggested the UK government's immigration policy had no basis in international law.

He was being quizzed by the Lords EU home affairs sub-committee which is investigating global migration.

Mr Sutherland, who is non-executive chairman of Goldman Sachs International and a former chairman of oil giant BP, heads the Global Forum on Migration and Development , which brings together representatives of 160 nations to share policy ideas.

He told the House of Lords committee migration was a "crucial dynamic for economic growth" in some EU nations "however difficult it may be to explain this to the citizens of those states".

'More open'
An ageing or declining native population in countries like Germany or southern EU states was the "key argument and, I hesitate to the use word because people have attacked it, for the development of multicultural states", he added.

"It's impossible to consider that the degree of homogeneity which is implied by the other argument can survive because states have to become more open states, in terms of the people who inhabit them. Just as the United Kingdom has demonstrated."

At the most basic level individuals should have a freedom of choice
Peter Sutherland, UN special representative for migration

The UN special representative on migration was also quizzed about what the EU should do about evidence from the Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) that employment rates among migrants were higher in the US and Australia than EU countries.

He told the committee: "The United States, or Australia and New Zealand, are migrant societies and therefore they accommodate more readily those from other backgrounds than we do ourselves, who still nurse a sense of our homogeneity and difference from others.

"And that's precisely what the European Union, in my view, should be doing its best to undermine."

Mr Sutherland recently argued, in a lecture to the London School of Economics, of which he is chairman, that there was a "shift from states selecting migrants to migrants selecting states" and the EU's ability to compete at a "global level" was at risk.

'No justification'
In evidence to the Lords committee, he urged EU member states to work together more closely on migration policy and advocated a global approach to the issue - criticising the UK government's attempt to cut net migration from its current level to "tens of thousands" a year through visa restrictions.
British higher education chiefs want non-EU overseas students to be exempted from migration statistics and say visa restrictions brought in to help the government meet its target will damage Britain's economic competitiveness.
But immigration minister Damian Green has said exempting foreign students would amount to "fiddling" the figures and the current method of counting was approved by the UN.

Committee chairman Lord Hannay, a crossbench peer and a former British ambassador to the UN, said Mr Green's claim of UN backing for including students in migration figures "frankly doesn't hold water - this is not a piece of international law".

Mr Sutherland, a former Attorney General of Ireland, agreed, saying: "Absolutely not. it provides absolutely no justification at all for the position they are talking about."

'UK support'
He said the policy risked Britain's traditional status as "tolerant, open society" and would be "massively damaging" to its higher education sector both financially and intellectually.

"It's very important that we should not send a signal from this country, either to potential students of the highest quality, or to academic staff, that this is in some way an unsympathetic environment in which to seek visas or whatever other permissions are required... and I would be fearful that that could be a signal."

Mr Sutherland, who has attended meetings of The Bilderberg Group , a top level international networking organisation often criticised for its alleged secrecy, called on EU states to stop targeting "highly skilled" migrants, arguing that "at the most basic level individuals should have a freedom of choice" about whether to come and study or work in another country.

Mr Sutherland also briefed the peers on plans for the Global Migration and Development Forum's next annual conference in Mauritius in November, adding: "The UK has been very constructively engaged in this whole process from the beginning and very supportive of me personally."

Asked afterwards how much the UK had contributed to the forum's running costs in the six years it had been in existence, he said it was a relatively small sum in the region of "tens of thousands".

http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-politics-18519395

[Decky]

Why conservatives embraced mass immigration is still a mystery.

No it isn't. Conservatives want as much cheap non unionised labour as they can possibly import. There is no such thing as mass immigration under left wing governments, the Soviet Union didn't have it. Mass immigration is a wholly conservative phenomena. Where is the mystery?

[noir]

The greatest enigma is how the German capitalist elite and the German anticapitalist left share the same ideology and aims.

[Nonsense]

The greatest enigma is how the German capitalist elite and the German anticapitalist left share the same ideology and aims.

As with Germany,so too with the UK & the EU eventually.

The 'capitalist-right wing-elite' & 'anti-capitalist'(I note that 'Socialist' or 'Leftist' are not terms used by you)share the ideology for different reasons.

Firstly, the capitalist political representatives in political power, like the' Left' ONLY see 'Democracy' as the 'key' to power,they have ABSOLUTELY no interest in 'democracy', or that which gives life to it, namely PEOPLE.

ALL they both care about is MONEY(from government, or exploitation of consumers or producers, in order to promote their elitist 'superiority' complex) or, the social 'deconstruction' & 'reconstruction'of society in the image of their ideology.

If they wish to create such a society, let them 'F' off & create their 'Caliphate' in the countries from which these excess migrants emerge from.
I would love to see the reality when our emigrants fill 'their' countries to the brim, causing job displacement, massive surges in welfare cost, massive housing,health & other shortages or cost.
The capitalist political class excercise the 'divide & rule' principle, the 'Left' want to deconstruct the 'normality' of family existence, by substituting it with a 'Left' wing construct of a 'gay', 'ethnic' & 'feminist' agenda.


The realities of everyday life are totally irrelevent to either the 'Left' or 'Right', both are 'elitist' & non-democratic.

When one understands that, you then know why people do not vote.