Migration Megathread

4068ac1elhodqr

Brian? wrote: »

This is a straw man. I never called either fascists.

Fine, 'direct predecessor to the formation of a fascist state', is that nicer/better?

Is this really a common view, or would it be better suited to 'conspiracy theories' > yonder way.

Brian?

Briggs Full Sunblock wrote: »

Sure go for it, assuming they get elected by suppression of any opposition, particularily difficult in the Western democratic world, in current times or any forseeable future time.

So I can only criticise someone if they rig elections? I can’t criticise anyone who’s been democratically elected, no matter what? I’m not being facetious, I am genuinely bamboozled by your point.

Identifying a 'direct predecessor' to any such an identity is largely subjective in any case, highly speculative and really not common outside of 'extreme opinion'.

This is a another meaningless collection of words. Of course my opinion that someone is a proto fascist is, well, my opinion. So it’s subjective. Again, the point?

Brian?

Briggs Full Sunblock wrote: »

Fine, 'direct predecessor to the formation of a fascist state', is that nicer/better?

Is this really a common view, or would it be better suited to 'conspiracy theories' > yonder way.

At last, you quote an entire post... the whole one line.

I’m glad you’re admitted you’re wrong about me calling people fascists. Thanks. I have a feeling you learnt what a proto fascist was about an hour ago.

It’s hardly a conspiracy theory to call an extreme nationalist, with authoritarian tendencies a proto fascist. It’s callint a spade a shovel.

recedite

Brian? wrote: »

It’s hardly a conspiracy theory to call an extreme nationalist, with authoritarian tendencies a proto fascist.

"Proto fascist" is a makey up term, and you are only using the word "fascist" as a pejorative, ie with no real meaning. A demagogue seizes power permanently, so that's another term you misused.

What are Salvini's "authoritarian tendencies" which you speak of?
His disdain for democracy? Sounds more like a description of you than Salvini.


Salvini is probably a bit like the Peronists of Argentina who have been in and out of power for decades.

mayordenis

recedite wrote: »

A demagogue seizes power permanently, so that's another term you misused.

It's not a good look to be strident and wrong.

Brian?

recedite wrote: »

"Proto fascist" is a makey up term, and you are only using the word "fascist" as a pejorative, ie with no real meaning. A demagogue seizes power permanently, so that's another term you misused.

What are Salvini's "authoritarian tendencies" which you speak of?
His disdain for democracy? Sounds more like a description of you than Salvini.


Salvini is probably a bit like the Peronists of Argentina who have been in and out of power for decades.

I don’t have a “disdain for democracy”, I feel free to criticise the outcome sometimes. As everyone should feel free to express opinions.

I am using demagogue correctly. I have no idea where you got your definition

demagogue
/ˈdɛməɡɒɡ/Submit
Learn to pronounce
noun
1.
a political leader who seeks support by appealing to the desires and prejudices of ordinary people rather than by using rational argument.
"a gifted demagogue with particular skill in manipulating the press"
synonyms: rabble-rouser, political agitator, agitator, soapbox orator, firebrand; More
verbUS
1.
rhetorically exploit (an issue) for political purposes in a way calculated to appeal to the desires and prejudices of ordinary people.
"he seems more interested in demagoguing the issue in media interviews than in dialogue"

Brian?

mayordenis wrote: »

It's not a good look to be strident and wrong.

Who’s wrong?

mayordenis

Brian? wrote: »

Who’s wrong?

Not you, to my understanding anyway. I have never understood demagogue to require a 'permanent' seizing of power.

Brian?

mayordenis wrote: »

Not you, to my understanding anyway. I have never understood demagogue to require a 'permanent' seizing of power.

Ah ok. Me either.

recedite

Whats your meaning when you say Trump and/or Salvini have "authoritarian tendencies"?

Sand

Midlife wrote: »

Not at all. I really don't want you to think that.

You believe English identity has to justify itself to you. If it is found wanting you call for it to be diluted, and for a long game to be played to encourage English people to abandon it. You're not taking a neutral view on English identity - you see it as a problem and you want to solve it.

I'm Irish but have no problem with someone who considers themselves Nigerian Irish or Pakistani Irish. I'm not abandoning my identity,

You're not abandoning your identity because you are keeping your (Irish) Irish identity distinct from the Nigerian Irish and the Pakistani Irish. Equally, the English identifying as English does not deny anyone else their British identity. However, in the case of the UK you see this preference for an English identity as problematic, something which must be managed. Its going to be a very long game indeed, for no benefit to the indigenous people.

I'm just accepting that mine is not the only valid one in this nation.

You're conflating nation and state there. That's separate to the point that multi-culturalism has only led to bitterly divided states, to the detriment of their citizens.

You can't tell me a single thing that identity is good for but abandoning it is the end of oneself? That makes no sense.

My position is that the English, like any people, do not have to justify their sense of identity to you or to anyone else.

You also say that identity can and does change over generations but we must be steadfast in this one not changing? Why?

Your mistake is that you think that the only way an identity can grow and change is via mass migration of other cultures into their country. Its not.

Everything you've said so far is that identity is just a 'thing', that it doesn't really matter, it's of no use. But suddenly changing or diluting it is a serious issue. Why?

Family is just a thing. It's not of any material use. It just is. You're only linked to these other people by sheer random chance. But you will still identify with and prefer your own child, even if other children are more academic, more athletic or more sociable. You will make sacrifices for your children that you would not make for other children. You will lay down your life for your child, even when the cold hard truth is you could survive and have more children to replace them. You don't have to justify or explain that identification to anyone.

People own sense of themselves and their identity is a massive factor in peoples behaviour and happiness. National identity - a sense that the people around them are connected to them in some non-transactional way is valuable. Studies have shown that the less cohesive and more multi-cultural a community becomes, the less happy everyone in that community is.

Even you believe a long game should be played to demand a shared British identity for everyone living within the borders of the UK. You are calling for same end result that the UK had 70 years ago before mass migration. For comparisons sake, it took close to 800 years of mayhem before Gaels, Norse, Normans, English and Scots managed to forge a common Irish identity. And even that has not been fully successful as seen in Northern Ireland.

Pick an economic one if you want, that would at least be rational.

Yugoslavia didn't collapse into civil war because of the economy. Young British men aren't bombing children at Adriana Grande concerts because of the economy.

Perhaps if you explained what good English identity or rather identity itself is, that would help.

I'd imagine you would only accept a calculated monetary value, right?

RandomName2

Brian? wrote: »

If a fascist is democratically elected, are you ok with me criticizing them?

I've only read the last page of content on this thread, so I may not entirely appreciate the context of this argument.

However, the main issue with a fascist being elected, or taking power by any other means, is not really their getting power.

There are safeguards in place: constitutional provisions, the independence of the courts, and the political structures of the state, which limit the potential harm that any government can pose.

The problem is that fascists disregard such safeguards. A fascist government sees a democratic election merely as a means to an end, which generally spell an end to democratic elections. To quote Goebells

We do not want to join this pile of manure. We are coming to shovel it out.

Do not believe that parliament is our goal. We have shown the enemy our nature from the podiums of our mass meetings and in the enormous demonstrations of our brown army. We will show it as well in the leaden atmosphere of parliament. We are coming neither as friends or neutrals. We come as enemies! As the wolf attacks the sheep, so come we. You are not among your friends any longer! You will not enjoy having us among you!

The irony of the propaganda made of the Rechstag fire was that the Nazis had complete contempt for everything that the Reichstag represented.

Fascists choose democratic elections to obtain power only if they present the easiest vehicle with which to gain power. Coup, uprising, civil war. All these may be preferable, particularly since winning in such circumstances make the entire institution of democratic elections null and void. If the Nazis had not won at the polls, they would certainly have tried to take power by force.

A fascist who is not a revolutionary is no true fascist. I have never heard of a fascist leader going up for reelection.

Brian?

RandomName2 wrote: »

I've only read the last page of content on this thread, so I may not entirely appreciate the context of this argument.

However, the main issue with a fascist being elected, or taking power by any other means, is not really their getting power.

There are safeguards in place: constitutional provisions, the independence of the courts, and the political structures of the state, which limit the potential harm that any government can pose.

The problem is that fascists disregard such safeguards. A fascist government sees a democratic election merely as a means to an end, which generally spell an end to democratic elections. To quote Goebells



The irony of the propaganda made of the Rechstag fire was that the Nazis had complete contempt for everything that the Reichstag represented.

Fascists choose democratic elections to obtain power only if they present the easiest vehicle with which to gain power. Coup, uprising, civil war. All these may be preferable, particularly since winning in such circumstances make the entire institution of democratic elections null and void. If the Nazis had not won at the polls, they would certainly have tried to take power by force.

A fascist who is not a revolutionary is no true fascist. I have never heard of a fascist leader going up for reelection.

The context is the key here. I was being belittled for critiquing the choices of Trump, Silvani etc. As they were democratically elected. The poster seemed to feel it wasn’t ok for me to criticise politicians who were democratically elected, because somehow this was anti democratic. Which is nonsense.

4068ac1elhodqr

Brian? wrote: »

The context is the key here. I was being belittled for critiquing the choices of Trump, Silvani etc.

For a start, you named him as 'direct predecessors to the formation of a fascist state'.

Brian? wrote: »

If your taste in politicians is populist proto fascist, he really hits the mark. Anti gay marriage, anti immgration and pro Trump.

The context is key here, the democratic voters of Italy (and US, even Brexitland) all choose to put theses figures, or these policies in action.

Yes indeed (mass) migration was also a strong primary factor in all of them, getting elected. You could perhaps say the people of these lands are mainly anti-mass-imigration, that hardly makes the population fascist-like.

Gay marriage is only allowed in a handful of countries, globally so again unfair to single out this stance, this suggests prejudice.

Trump still remains the firm favourite for 2020, and he even openly welcomes his next opponent for topical debate (unlike a typical dictator).

He warmly welcomed Oprah when she was considering, offering praise for her not only as a person/personality but also apotential candidate. He hardly considers her, or any other opponents, as 'deplorables' (unlike others).

oscarBravo

49 people dead in gun attacks on two mosques in New Zealand.

I guess it's not that big a jump from "Muslims don't deserve to live among us" to "Muslims don't deserve to live".

Brian?

New Zealand needs to review the status of all Northern European immigrants now. Their culture isn’t compatible with that of Maori culture.

markodaly

Brian? wrote: »

New Zealand needs to review the status of all Northern European immigrants now. Their culture isn’t compatible with that of Maori culture.

Well seeing that Maori culture is famously steeped as a warrior culture for centuries, where they would eat their dead adversaries after the battle for 'mana' I am not sure your point has any validity.

Look, I get what you are saying but you made a ham-fisted post of it. Plus the timing of it, so soon after this happened??

Schnitzler Hiyori Geta

Funny how it's always too soon to talk about something when it doesn't fit the agenda. If this was the other way around, I'm sure such reverence and respect would not be present.

Midlife

Sand wrote: »

You believe English identity has to justify itself to you. If it is found wanting you call for it to be diluted, and for a long game to be played to encourage English people to abandon it. You're not taking a neutral view on English identity - you see it as a problem and you want to solve it.



You're not abandoning your identity because you are keeping your (Irish) Irish identity distinct from the Nigerian Irish and the Pakistani Irish. Equally, the English identifying as English does not deny anyone else their British identity. However, in the case of the UK you see this preference for an English identity as problematic, something which must be managed. Its going to be a very long game indeed, for no benefit to the indigenous people.



You're conflating nation and state there. That's separate to the point that multi-culturalism has only led to bitterly divided states, to the detriment of their citizens.



My position is that the English, like any people, do not have to justify their sense of identity to you or to anyone else.



Your mistake is that you think that the only way an identity can grow and change is via mass migration of other cultures into their country. Its not.



Family is just a thing. It's not of any material use. It just is. You're only linked to these other people by sheer random chance. But you will still identify with and prefer your own child, even if other children are more academic, more athletic or more sociable. You will make sacrifices for your children that you would not make for other children. You will lay down your life for your child, even when the cold hard truth is you could survive and have more children to replace them. You don't have to justify or explain that identification to anyone.

People own sense of themselves and their identity is a massive factor in peoples behaviour and happiness. National identity - a sense that the people around them are connected to them in some non-transactional way is valuable. Studies have shown that the less cohesive and more multi-cultural a community becomes, the less happy everyone in that community is.

Even you believe a long game should be played to demand a shared British identity for everyone living within the borders of the UK. You are calling for same end result that the UK had 70 years ago before mass migration. For comparisons sake, it took close to 800 years of mayhem before Gaels, Norse, Normans, English and Scots managed to forge a common Irish identity. And even that has not been fully successful as seen in Northern Ireland.



Yugoslavia didn't collapse into civil war because of the economy. Young British men aren't bombing children at Adriana Grande concerts because of the economy.



I'd imagine you would only accept a calculated monetary value, right?

Having read through this and thought for a while about how to answer, I think it's only fair to say that we disagree here to a large extent.

I gather that you feel race is paramount and that diluting races is bad because it messes with this thing called identity which is important to us in a core way. Essentially it's better to keep everyone in separate homogeneous groups.

You've also mentioned that migration is of no use to the indigenous people.

I'd like to add that you're trying to pin a lot on my doorstep but you brought up the thing about English identity being a barrier to integration. This is your problem and when you are asked why or for a fix, you say that 'it just is'

Brian?

markodaly wrote: »

Well seeing that Maori culture is famously steeped as a warrior culture for centuries, where they would eat their dead adversaries after the battle for 'mana' I am not sure your point has any validity.

Look, I get what you are saying but you made a ham-fisted post of it. Plus the timing of it, so soon after this happened??

So soon after if happened? If this was a Muslim attacking a church there would be no such reverence.

markodaly

Brian? wrote: »

So soon after if happened? If this was a Muslim attacking a church there would be no such reverence.

You used this latest crime as some sly dig at Europeans settled in the Antipodes. But you came out with egg on your face.

James Brown

The attacks in New Zealand shows us once again how ignorance and violence aren't the sole characteristics of any one ethnic grouping or religion, not that most of us need any reminding. Whatever form we see hate and ignorance whipped up in, be it secret meetings or Twitter, this can be the result.

ancapailldorcha

No more backseat modding please. Posts deleted and ban issued.

Brian?

markodaly wrote: »

You used this latest crime as some sly dig at Europeans settled in the Antipodes. But you came out with egg on your face.

No, I didn't. I was attempting a parody of the outrage displayed in this thread, and others, when a crime is committed by a Muslim in a European country. I have no problem with immigration most of the time, ye see?

I'm sorry it was too high brow and you missed it.

James Brown

The one thing terrorists seem to have in common is a feeling of being disenfranchised. The ones who carry out the attacks tend to have a troubled back ground, become 'radicalised' due to personal circumstances rather than any philosophy. People with this kind of mindset will find a cause or be happy to join any cause that finds them. The philosophy suits the troubled mind IMO. I wouldn't see much difference between this attacker, (from what we hear so far), that Incel Toronto van attacker and any ISIS claimed attack.
Immigration is the oldest hot button in the book. Fear the different.

Brian?

Matt Barrett wrote: »

The one thing terrorists seem to have in common is a feeling of being disenfranchised. The ones who carry out the attacks tend to have a troubled back ground, become 'radicalised' due to personal circumstances rather than any philosophy. People with this kind of mindset will find a cause or be happy to join any cause that finds them. The philosophy suits the troubled mind IMO. I wouldn't see much difference between this attacker, (from what we hear so far), that Incel Toronto van attacker and any ISIS claimed attack.
Immigration is the oldest hot button in the book. Fear the different.

This + a million

The most sensible post on this thread.

Sand

Midlife wrote: »

Having read through this and thought for a while about how to answer, I think it's only fair to say that we disagree here to a large extent.

I think its also fair to say my views are based on evidence, and I am willing and able to argue them. Whereas your views are not and you aren't. That we then disagree is not surprising.

You've also mentioned that migration is of no use to the indigenous people.

Yes I have. There is no example of mass migration benefiting indigenous people. It has always led to terrible outcomes for indigenous people.

And you, like everyone else, can notice that I observe this but you're not able to present any evidence to contradict it. Because we all know mass migration *is* terrible for indigenous populations.

I'd like to add that you're trying to pin a lot on my doorstep but you brought up the thing about English identity being a barrier to integration. This is your problem and when you are asked why or for a fix, you say that 'it just is'

That's entirely incorrect. English identity was only brought up when it was noted that the English are a minority within their own capital city. Another poster was offended, claiming everyone born in the UK was English so by default London was still and would continue to be majority English. I presented evidence that even the non-indigenous British population did not believe they were English, identifying as British but not English. Another poster claimed that non-indigenous people identifying as British meant they had integrated with the indigenous people. I pointed out that the indigenous identified as English, not British, so the different identities are not evidence of integration.

You've been demanding that English identity be justified in absolute or monetary terms. You identified it as a barrier for integration. And you called for a long game to be played to encourage the English to abandon their identity.

Own your own views. Stop projecting them onto others.

Odhinn

Sand wrote: »

....................


Yes I have. There is no example of mass migration benefiting indigenous people. It has always led to terrible outcomes for indigenous people.

And you, like everyone else, can notice that I observe this but you're not able to present any evidence to contradict it. Because we all know mass migration *is* terrible for indigenous populations.

..................

Could you give perhaps a few examples?

Ultros

Odhinn wrote: »

Could you give perhaps a few examples?

Speaking specifically about recent large scale Muslim immigration, take your pick

Denmark

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/07/01/world/europe/denmark-immigrant-ghettos.html

"Starting at the age of 1, “ghetto children” must be separated from their families for at least 25 hours a week, not including nap time, for mandatory instruction in “Danish values,” including the traditions of Christmas and Easter, and Danish language. Noncompliance could result in a stoppage of welfare payments. Other Danish citizens are free to choose whether to enroll children in preschool up to the age of six.

Denmark’s government is introducing a new set of laws to regulate life in 25 low-income and heavily Muslim enclaves, saying that if families there do not willingly merge into the country’s mainstream, they should be compelled."

Germany

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/worldviews/wp/2015/12/14/angela-merkel-multiculturalism-is-a-sham/?noredirect=on&utm_term=.999cd1184700

German Chancellor Angela Merkel's refugee policy has attracted praise from all over the world. Time magazine and the Financial Times newspaper recently named her Person of the Year, and delegates applauded her for so long at her party's convention on Monday that she had to stop them.
The speech that followed, however, may have surprised supporters of her policies: "Multiculturalism leads to parallel societies and therefore remains a ‘life lie,’ ” or a sham, she said, before adding that Germany may be reaching its limits in terms of accepting more refugees. "The challenge is immense," she said. "We want and we will reduce the number of refugees noticeably."


Although those remarks may seem uncharacteristic of Merkel, she probably would insist that she was not contradicting herself. In fact, she was only repeating a sentiment she first voiced several years ago when she said multiculturalism in Germany had "utterly failed."

England

https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/huge-scale-of-terror-threat-revealed-uk-home-to-23-000-jihadists-3zvn58mhq

"Intelligence officers have identified 23,000 jihadist extremists living in Britain as potential terrorist attackers, it emerged yesterday."

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/12/09/grooming-gangs-muslim-men-failed-integrate-british-society/

The failure of certain parts of the Asian community to integrate into British society has led to gangs of British Pakistani Muslim men​ targeting white women with drink and drugs before raping and sexually abusing them, an anti-extremism think tank claims.
The report by Quilliam calls for greater support to help integrate British Pakistani people into modern British society.

It says that the gangs of mainly British-Pakistani men "have been influenced by the cultural conditions of their home country and a wider failure of British society to integrate these men into their adoptive culture".

France

https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/europe/struggling-to-prevent-terrorist-attacks-france-wants-to-reform-islam/2018/04/16/b81a20c6-1d67-11e8-98f5-ceecfa8741b6_story.html?utm_term=.c18976e68d32


Struggling to prevent terrorist attacks, France wants to ‘reform’ Islam

Speaking alongside the flag-draped coffin of a police officer killed in a terrorist attack in southern France, President Emmanuel Macron last month laid blame on “underground Islam­ism” and those who “indoctrinate on our soil and corrupt daily.”
The attack added further urgency to a project already in the works: Macron has embarked on a controversial quest to restructure Islam in France — with the goal of integration but also the prevention of radicalization.

Sweden

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/music/news/swedish-music-festival-go-women-only-following-string-sexual/


Sweden's biggest music festival will be replaced next year by a women-only alternative after reports of a series of rapes and sexual assaults at this year's event.

Bråvalla Festival, which this year was headlined by The Killers, The Chainsmokers and Skepta, has been blighted by news of sexual crime since its inception in 2013, while last weekend saw four rapes and 23 sexual assaults reported over the course of the four-day event. In 2016, five rapes and 12 sexual assaults were reported from the event, with that year's headliners Mumford & Sons and Zara Larsson later condemning the event and refusing to return.

And so on...

James Brown

Sand wrote: »

....
Yes I have. There is no example of mass migration benefiting indigenous people. It has always led to terrible outcomes for indigenous people.

And you, like everyone else, can notice that I observe this but you're not able to present any evidence to contradict it. Because we all know mass migration *is* terrible for indigenous populations....

To clarify, are you equating the Conquistadors, later U.S. Calvary and their treatment of the indigenous population to immigrants today moving, (sometimes en masse) to European countries?

If you are, that's ridiculous.

If you are not; the U.S. benefited greatly from migration as did Australia, as did Canada. And they still do. In Ireland our Taoiseach is a child of an immigrant and politics aside, he's contributing. It's unlikely the Varadkar's are an anomaly.

We are talking about mainly economic migrants and refugees from different parts of the world seeking a better life. There is no invasion to the extent of what the Maori, First Nations or Aboriginal had to deal with no matter how scared or fearful anyone might be.

European economies need workers and immigrant labour often fills that short fall. There's a clash of cultures to an extent but any violence stems from ignorance and those fueling it and feeding off it.